The AIADMK General Secretary, V. K. Sasikala, VN Sudhakaran (Sasikala’s nephew) and Ilavarasi (Sasikala’s sister-in-law) have moved to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the verdict in the disproportionate assets (DA) case.
Sasikala and the other two, were sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for four years, in the Rs 66 crore DA case, which also involved late Ex TN Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the case. The accused currently are serving sentence in Bengaluru jail.
A bench of Justices, headed by Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitav Roy, on February 14, had convicted them, by reversing the verdict of the Karnataka High Court, which acquitted the accused in the DA case. As Jayalalithaa had died on December 5, 2016 the bench said the appeal insofar she is concerned has come to an end.
The AIADMK General Secretary and the two other, seeking review of this verdict, said the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would not apply to them as they are not government servants, and that they have been falsely convicted even after the death of Jayalaithaa, who was the main accused in the case. Sasikala and her other family members, argued that once the main accused had expired the charges against them, the charges would have no stand.
We had not gathered wealth, as held in the judgment, as they were independent income tax assesses, and had paid income tax during the relevant period, said Sasikala. The accused wanted the court to have a re-look at the judgment and free them at liberty. The apex court accused Sasikala and others held a criminal conspiracy one after other, at Poes Garden to wash away the ill-gotten wealth of Jayalalithaa for purchasing huge properties in the names of “masked fronts.” The apex court in turn said, that the late CM dd not accommodate Sasikala at Poes Garden out of some “philanthropic urge”, but included Sasikala to keep herself secure from any legal complications, which may arise from their criminal activities. ‘
The Bench said, the fact that A2 to A4, did combine to constitute the firms, to acquire huge lands out of the funds, provided by Jayalalithaa. It was also a clear indication that their assemblage in Jayalalithaa’s house, was not engendered by any philanthropic urge for friends. They were living with Jayalalithaa, without any blood relation between them and only to frame the criminal conspiracy, to hold Jayalaithaa’s assets. The bench further said, on the contention that the accused had filed income tax returns and were accepted and that there was no suppression of income. Mere declaration of property in the income tax returns does not ipso facto connote that the same had been acquired from the known lawful sources of income, said the bench.
SUPRAJA
