Know 21 Facts from Supreme Court Judgement convicting V.K. Sasikala
Below are the important details facts from the Supreme Court Judgement which convicted AIADMK’s interim general secretary V.K. Sasikala, her relatives V.N. Sudhakaran and J. Ilavarasi, of criminal conspiracy to acquire and possess assets grossly disproportionate to their known sources of income.
Judgement Total Number of Pages - 570
Case Name Info –
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 300-303 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6117-6120 of 2015)
STATE OF KARNATAKA … … APPELLANT(S)
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 304-307 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6294-6297 of 2015)
K. ANBAZHAGAN … … APPELLANT(S)
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. ETC. … RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.308-313 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6121-6126 of 2015)
K. ANBAZHAGAN … … APPELLANT(S)
INDO DOHA CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS
AND ORS. ETC. … … RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.314-319 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.7107-7112 of 2015)
STATE OF KARNATAKA … … APPELLANT(S)
INDO DOHA CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS
LTD. AND ORS. ETC. … … RESPONDENT(S)
The respondents-accused would hereinafter be referred to as respondents/accused/A1/A2/A3/
A4, as the case may be, contingent on the context
A1 - J. JAYALALITHA
A2- Sasikala Natarajan
A3- V.N. Sudhakaran is the son of A2’s elder sister Smt. Vanithamani
A4- J. Elavarasi is the wife of late V. Jayaraman, the elder brother of A2
11.5.2015 High Court of Karnataka acquitted Respondents
Supreme Court Appeal Filed
the respondent No.1 expired and, thus in law, the appeals against her have abated.
Respondent No. 1 = J. JAYALALITHA
Charges were framed against A1 – former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and the co-accused viz. A2, A3 and A4 (respondents herein), for commission of the alleged offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act and further under Section 120-B and Section 109 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 (since
deceased) was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 24th June, 1991 till 13th May, 1996.
Properties A1 –
Facts reveal that she J. JAYALALITHA was the daughter of late Smt. N.R. Sandhya, who also acted in films during 1960’s. Smt. N.R. Sandhya died in the year 1971 and by virtue of her mother’s Will dated 01.11.1971, A1 became the owner of the following properties viz.,
(i) Land and building at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86;
(ii) House at Plot No.36, Door No.8/3/1099 in Sri Nagar Officer’s Colony at Hyderabad City;
(iii) Lands totally measuring 10.20 acres in Sy.No.52 and Sy.No.50 of Jeedimetla village and Sy. No.93/1 of Pet Basheerabad Village in Metchal Taluk in Ranga Reddy Dist. of Andhra Pradesh with Grape Garden, Farm House and Servants quarters;
(iv) Land in Sy.No.93/2 to the extent of 3.15 acres in Pet Basheerabad village in Andhra Pradesh;
In addition to the above properties, A1 was also in possession of –
(v) Agricultural land measuring 3.43 acres in Cheyyur Taluk now in Anna Dist. (as per Doc. No.4564/81, dt.16.12.1981 of SRO North Madras);
(vi) An old Ambassador car and an old Contessa car;
(vii) A new Maruti car bearing registration No.TMA-2466 worth Rs. 60,435/- and
(viii) Company shares.
Thus, the assets which were in the possession of A1 up to 1987 were found to be worth only Rs.7.5 lakhs. Besides, she also claimed to have possessed balance in her bank accounts
to the extent of Rs.1 lakh and certain items of jewellery
A2 – Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan is the wife of one Mr. M. Natarajan who had joined Government service as a Publicity Assistant in the Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of Tamil Nadu, in the year 1970 and thereafter promoted in succession eventually as Deputy Director in the year 1986 in the same department. He tendered his resignation from Government service on 1st November, 1988 which was accepted by the Government of Tamil Nadu with retrospective effect on 3rd April, 1991
A2, as it appears from the facts, is the daughter one C. Vivekanandan, a Medical Compounder, and her marriage with said Natarajan was held in the early 1970’s. A2 was initially an occasional visitor to the residence of A1 at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86, and started permanently living there with A1 from 1988 onwards and was acknowledged and declared by A1 as her friend-cum-sister. A2 continued to live with A1 since then.
A3 – Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran is the son of A2’s elder sister Smt. Vanithamani and T.T. Vivekanandan. He started residing at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86 in the year 1992 while
pursuing his studies at New College, Chennai. A1 had acknowledged and proclaimed A3 as her “foster son” and had conducted his marriage with one Sathiyalakshmi at Chennai on 7.9.1995, in a lavish celebrations.
A4, Tmt. J. Elavarasi is the wife of late V. Jayaraman, the elder brother of A2. The said V. Jayaraman was a Government servant and he died in December, 1991 due to electrocution
while attending to works in the Grape Garden of A1 at Hyderabad. Following her husband’s death, A4 came to live at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86, from the beginning of 1992.
The case of the prosecution is that, as on 1.7.1991, A1 was found in possession of properties and pecuniary resources in her name and in the name of A2 Smt. N. Sasikala, who was living with A1 at No. 36, Poes Garden, Chennai to the extent of Rs.2,01,83,957/- including the properties acquired in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications, M/s. Sasi Enterprises and Namadhu MGR, which had been floated by A1 and A2 with themselves as partners. But, after 1.7.1991, there was sudden spurt in the acquisition of assets and during this period, A1 and A2 floated several firms in the names of A2, A3 and A4
i. M/s. J. Farm Houses;
ii. M/s. J.S. Housing Development;
iii. M/s. Jay Real Estate;
iv. M/s. Jaya Contractors and Builders;
v. M/s. J.S. Leasing and Maintenance;
vi. M/s. Green Farm Houses;
vii. M/s. Metal King;
viii. M/s. Super Duper TV (P) Ltd.,
ix. M/s. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd.,
x. M/s. Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd.,
xi. M/s. Signora Business Enterprises Pvt., Ltd.,
xii. M/s. Lex Property Development Pvt., Ltd.,
xiii. M/s. Riverway Agro Products Pvt., Ltd.,
xiv. M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Pvt., Ltd.,
xv. M/s. Indo Doha Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
xvi. M/s. A.P. Advertising Services;
xvii. M/s. Vigneswara Builders;
xviii. M/s. Lakshmi Constructions;
xix. M/s. Gopal Promoters;
xx. M/s. Sakthi Constructions;
xxi. M/s. Namasivaya Housing Development;
xxii. M/s. Ayyappa Property Developments;
xxiii. M/s. Sea Enclave;
xxiv. M/s. Navasakthi Contractors and Builders;
xxv. M/s. Oceanic Constructions;
xxvi. M/s. Green Garden Apartments;
xxvii. M/s. Marble Marvels;
xxviii. Vinod Video Vision;
xxix. Fax Universal;
xxx. Fresh Mushrooms;
xxxi. M/s. Super Duper TV., and
xxxii. M/s. Kodanadu Tea Estate;
The further case of the prosecution is that during the check period i.e. from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996, there were no business activities at all in respect of many of the above firms,
and in respect of others, the activities were more in the nature of acquiring assets like lands, machinery, building etc., which were not production oriented. No income-tax returns were filed
by these firms. No assessment for commercial tax has also been done with respect to the business of these firms. A1 also did not file her Income-tax returns for the assessment years
1987-88 to 1992-93 till November, 1992 and when this issue was sought to be raised in Parliament, A1 filed the income-tax returns for the above period in November, 1992. Subsequent
to 1.7.1991, assets in the form of movable and immovable properties and pecuniary resources like bank deposits etc., were found acquired not only in the name of A1, but also in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the firms floated in their names. Scrutiny of various bank accounts maintained in the names of A1 to A4 and in the names of the above firms disclosed that huge credits in cash had been frequently made into various accounts which were not commensurate with the income of the individuals and of the firms concerned here were frequent transfers of amounts between one account to the others to facilitate illegal acquisition of assets. The huge
quantum of such assets, when viewed in the context that A1 was holding the office of the Chief Minister and that A2, A3 and A4 were living under the same roof with A1 and not having sufficient means to acquire the assets in their names, established that the assets were actually acquired by A1
It is further alleged that, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy between A1, a public servant and her associates viz., A2, A3 and A4, to acquire and possess properties and pecuniary resources by A1 in her name and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and in the names of various firms floated by
them, they amassed properties and pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.66,64,73,573/- (later corrected as Rs.66,65,20,395/-), which was grossly disproportionate to the known sources of income of A1 and A2 to A4 during the check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. According to the
prosecution, the income from the known sources of A1 during this period, such as rental income, interest derived from various bank deposits and other deposits held by her in her name and in the names of A2, A3 and A4, agricultural income, loans and the salary received by her as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, worked out to a total of Rs.9,34,26,054/-, whereas during this period the expenditure incurred by A1 including repayment of principal amounts and interest on loan, and other outgoings were assessed at Rs.11,56,56,833/-. Thus, as on 30.4.1996, A1 being a public servant was found to have acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties in
her name and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the firms floated by them, which were overwhelmingly disproportionate to her known sources of income to the extent of
Rs.66,65,20,395/- (Rupees Sixty Six Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Three hundred and Ninety Five only) which is an offence of criminal misconduct within the definition of
Sec.13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of 1988 Act and A2, A3, and A4 conspired with A1 and abetted the commission of the above offence.
On 14.6.1996, Dr. Subramanian Swamy (PW-232), the then President of Janata Dal lodged a complaint against A1 before the Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Madras, under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that A1, after assuming the public office as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, had acquired properties and earned income disproportionate to her known
sources of income. The said complaint was registered as Crl.M.P. No.3238 of 1996 and by order dated 21.06.1996, the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge directed investigation
under Section 17 of 1988 Act and Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and further directed to collect necessary materials and submit a report before the Court within a period of two months.
Pursuant to the said order, PW-240 - Smt. Letika Saran, a senior IPS Officer, took up the investigation, collected records and documents from various sources.
FIR was filed against A1 on 18.9.1996
On completion of investigation, PW- 259 (Shri Nallamma Naidu) laid the charges against all the
accused on 4.6.1997 which was duly registered as Spl. C.C. No.7/97 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court, I), Chennai.
judgment dated 18.11.2003 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.77-78/2003, the Supreme
Court transferred the said matter to the State of Karnataka and in terms of the said judgment, the Government of Karnataka by its order dated 27.12.2003 duly accorded sanction for establishment of the Special Curt at Bangalore and by Notification dated 19.02.2005, duly appointed Shri B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka as Public Prosecutor to conduct the said matter
Thereafter, the said matter bearing Spl.C.C. No.7/1997 was renumbered as Spl.C.C. No.208/2004 and Spl.C.C. No.2/2001 was renumbered as Spl.C.C. No.209/2004 on the
file of the Special Judge (i.e. 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore.
Trial Court after hearing the parties culled out the following points for determination:
(a) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that A1, being a public servant
acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A2 to A4 and in the names of business
enterprises floated in their names, pecuniary resources and assets of the value of
Rs.66,65,20,395/- disproportionate to her known source of income during the check period from 01.07.1991 and 30.04.1996, which she could not satisfactorily account?
(b) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that A1 to 4 were parties to a criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing pecuniary resources and assets to the18 extent of Rs.66,65,20,395/- in the names of A1 and in the names of A2 to 4 and the 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to 4 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code R/w. Sec.13 (2) R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
(c) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that A2 to A4 abetted the commission of the above offence by intentionally aiding A1 in the acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to her known source of income by holding substantial portion thereof in their names and in the names of 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to A4, rendering them liable for conviction for the offence punishable u/Sec. 109 Indian Penal Code R/w. Sec. 13(2) R/w. Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
(d) What order?
Trial Court came to the following conclusion: “Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that as against the income of Rs.9,91,05,094.75 and expenditure of Rs.8,49,06,833.00 during the check period, A1 acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A2 to A4 and in the names of the business enterprises acquired in their names immovable properties and pecuniary resources of the value of Rs.53,60,49,954.00 which she could not satisfactorily account. Hence, acting u/Sec. 248 (2) of 896 Spl.C.C.208/2004 Cr.P.C., A1 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act.
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, A1 to A4 were parties to criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing pecuniary resources and assets to the extent of Rs.53,60,49,954.00 beyond the known source of income of A1. Hence, A1, A2, A3 and A4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act.
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A2 to A4 abetted the commission of the above offence by intentionally aiding A1 in the acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to her known source of income as above. Hence, A2, A3 and A4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.109 of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act
The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor on sentence, awarded the following sentence against the accused:
“For the offence u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of the 1988 Act, A1 Selvi. J. Jayalalitha, D/o. Late. Jayaram, is hereby sentenced to undergo simple 908 Spl.C.C.208/2004 imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.100 crores. In default to pay the fine amount, she shall undergo further imprisonment for one year.
For the offence, punishable u/Sec. 120-B I.P.C., R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A1 is sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to70 pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. In default to pay the fine, she shall undergo further imprisonment for one month.
For the offence, punishable u/Secs. 109 of I.P.C., R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2 Tmt. Sasikala
Natarajan, A3 Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran and A4 Tmt. J. Eavarasi are sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of four years each and to pay fine of Rs.10 crores each. In default to pay the fine amount, A2, A3 and A4 shall each undergo further imprisonment for one year.
For the offence, punishable u/Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2, A3 and A4 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.
In default to pay the fine amount, A2, A3 and A4 shall each undergo further imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Period of custody already undergone by the accused shall be given set off u/Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.
Appeal Filed in High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order passed by the Court of 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore.
High Court Acquitted all the accused.
After his Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India
Case Before Supreme Court of India –
Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeals first contended that the High Court has calculated the disproportionate assets by adopting an incorrect method with wrong particulars and our attention was drawn to Page 997 of the SLP Paper Book, where in the table consisting of assets and expenditure, the High Court has reduced the values therein but has inflated the income and thus inaccurately assessed the disproportionate assets to be Rs.2,82,36, 812/-. It is pointed out before us that there are concurrent findings of the two Courts in respect of the fact that the accused did own disproportionate assets76 during the check period and the difference between the two
Courts is only with regard to the quantum. While the Trial Court held that it is Rs.53,60,49,954/-, the High Court held it as Rs.2,83,36,812/-. It is also submitted that in calculating the disproportionate assets, value of assets, expenditure and income of all the accused has been taken jointly along with that of firms and companies (34 in number). Both the Courts, High Court as well as Trial Court, have recorded concurrent findings and have taken all the assets, income and expenditure of all the accused together. It is further pointed out that the sole source of inflow is of A1, although assets were standing in the names of other accused or the
firms/companies owned by them. It is further submitted, as appears from the records, that both the Courts did not accept the claim to consider the case of A1 and A2 to A4 separately.
Hence, it is submitted that now they cannot claim such a course to be adopted at this stage before this Court
sole public servant has died being A1 in this matter, in our opinion, though the appeals
against her have abated, even then A2 to A4 are liable to be convicted and sentenced in the manner as has been held by the Trial Judge
The Trial Court held that even private individuals could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. and we find that the Trial Court was right in coming to the
conclusion relying on the decision of Nallammal (supra), wherein it was observed that acquisition and possession by a public servant was capable of being abetted, and observed that
Under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try offences punishing even abetment or conspiracy of the offences mentioned in the PC Act and in our opinion,
the Trial Court correctly held in this matter that private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under
Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act committed by the public servant.
Furthermore, the reasoning given by the Trial Court in respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment, after scrutinizing the evidence of this case, is correct in the face of the overwhelming evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and conspiracy by A2 to A4 in the commission of the above offences under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
This would be evident from the following circumstances: -
(i) A1 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of A2 in respect of Jaya Publications marked as Ex. P-995. The circumstance of executing the power of attorney in favour of A2 indicates that with a view to keep herself secured from legal complications, A1 executed the said
power of attorney knowing fully well that under the said powers, A2 would be dealing with her funds credited to her account in Jaya Publications.
(ii) Constitution of various firms during the check period is another circumstance establishing the conspiracy between the parties. It has come in evidence that 10 firms were constituted on a single day. In addition, A2 and A3 started independent concerns and apart from buying properties, no other business activity was undertaken by them. The circumstances proved in
evidence undoubtedly establish that these firms are nothing but extentions of Namadhu MGR and Jaya Publications and they owed their existence to the benevolence of A1 and A2
(iii) The aforesaid firms and companies were operating from the residence of A1 and it cannot be accepted that she561 was unaware of the same even though she feigned ignorance about the activities carried on by A2 to A4. They were residing with A1 without any blood relation
(iv) Although A2 to A4 claims to have independent sources of income but the fact of constitution of firms and acquisition of large tracts of land out of the funds provided by A1 indicate that, all the accused congregated in the house of A1 neither for social living nor A1 allowed them free accommodation out of humanitarian concern, rather the facts and circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly point out that A2 to A4 were accommodated in the house of A1 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by them to hold the assets of A1.
(v) Ex.D.61 reveals that before the Income Tax Authorities, the representative of A1 himself had put forth an argument that Rs.1 crore was advanced by A1 to Sasi Enterprises towards share capital and further it was submitted that on the security of the said amount, loan was borrowed by A1, and thus she cannot claim noninvolvement with the firms.
(vi) The flow of money from one account to the other proves that there existed active conspiracy to launder the illgotten wealth of A1 for purchasing properties in the names of the firms.
(vii) The conspiracy among the accused persons is also proved by the evidence of Sub-Registrar, North Beach, Sub-Registrar office-PW.159 and the evidence of PW.71 Radha Krishnan, Horticultural officer. In our opinion, the Trial Court correctly came to the conclusion on such reasoning and we hereby uphold the same.
Supreme Court Bench set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and affirm and restore the judgment of the Trial Court in toto against A2 to A4.
However, though in the process of scrutiny of the facts and the law involved and the inextricable nexus of A1 with A2 to A4, reference to her role as well as the evidence pertaining to her
had been made, she having expired meanwhile, the appeals, so far as those relate to her stand abated. Nevertheless, to reiterate, having regard to the fact that the charge framed
against A2 to A4 is proved, the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Trial Court is restored in full including the consequential directions.
Respondents A2 to A4, in view of this determination and the restoration of their conviction and sentence, would surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. The Trial Court is hereby also ordered to take immediate steps to ensure that the respondents A2 to A4 serve out the remainder of sentence awarded them and take further steps in compliance of this judgment, in accordance with law
Suggested Reading –
Full Text Read Supreme Court Judgement DA Case Convicting AIADMK general secretary VK Sasikala
Reality views by sm –
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Tags – Important Facts Supreme Court Judgement Sasikala Case
15 February 2017
Know 21 Facts from Supreme Court Judgement convicting V.K. Sasikala