Are there glaring mathematical errors in Jayalalithaa case judgement? Opponents think so
news Tuesday, May 12, 2015 - 05:30
It has just been a day since the stunner from the Karnataka High Court acquitting former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa and three others in the Disproportionate Assets case, and political opponents and lawyers have already started pointing out errors in the judgment.Â DMK leader M Karunanidhi and PMK leader Ramadoss have asked for a time bound re-trial. The TN Congress has also made a statement stating the judgment is full of errors. The DMK in a press statement said that the party will file an appeal and asked the Karnataka government, which was the prosecutor in the case, to also go for an appeal. At least two errors have been spotted by political opponents of the AIADMK andÂ lawyersÂ so far. Also read- Why has Jayalalithaa not come out of her Poes Garden residence? This is a little complicated, dear reader. So bear with us, we will break down the allegations by DMK and PMK down to as simple as it can get. Miscalculation of loan amounts? Page no. 852 of the judgment calculates the total loan taken from nationalized banks as Rs. 24,17,31,274.00 According to DMK, simple addition of all the heads above, shows that the total amounts to Rs. 10,67,31,274, which is less by Rs. 13,50,00,000. So there is a difference of Rs. 13.5 crore. Page No. 852 of High Court Judgment: Error pointed out by DMK After deducting the amount of Rs. 5,99,85,274, the income assessed by the investigating agency, the â€˜balance loan amountâ€™ mentioned in the judgment is Rs. 18,17,46,000. But DMK lawyers state that it should be Rs. 4,67,46,000, thatâ€™s Rs. 4.76 crore, which is less by the same Rs. 13.5 crore. Page No. 852 of High Court Judgement: Error pointed out by DMK Now letâ€™s get to page nos. 913 and 914, which lists out all the income, expenditure, loans and assets to calculate disproportionate income. In the "Statement of income of accused" at the bottom of Page 913, the first head "Loans as income" is Rs. 18,17,46,000. As has been pointed out earlier, this should be Rs. 4.76 crore. Page No. 913 of High Court Judgement: Error pointed out by DMK So "Total Income" would be Rs. 21,26,65,654, and not Rs. Rs. 34,76,65,654. Further, in page no. 914, instead of Rs. 2,82,36,812 as disproportionate income, the total disproportionate income should be Rs 16, 32, 36, 812. To make it simple, disproportionate income calculated should not be Rs. 2.82 crore, but Rs. 16.32 crore. Page No. 913 of High Court Jugement: Error pointed by DMK That means the percentage of disproportionate income jumps to 76.75% from 8.12%. However, Jayalalithaa's supporters have argued that the list of loans in Page 852 is an incomplete list and other loans from other parts of the judgment, especially on page 851 must also be added, and doing that might add up to the figures mentioned in the judgment. Therefore, the argument from Jayalalithaa's supporters is that the judgment is right. The confusion persists about the loans listed by the judge in page 851 and 852 of the judgment. On page 851, he speaks about a loan amount of Rs 7.3 crore from Indian bank, no mention of this is made on the next page. On page 120 the judge recalls that a loan of Rs 2.5 crore was given to Sasikala, but on page 852, this amount is mentioned as Rs 25 lakhs.Â "It is well settled law that according to Krishnanand Agnihotriâ€™s case, when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal. A circular has been issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh that disproportionate asset to the extent of 20% can also be considered as a permissible limit. The margin of 10% to 20% of the disproportionate assets has been taken as a permissible limit, taking into consideration the inflatory measures." -Â Page 914, of the judgment Read- What can judge Kumaraswamy do about the mathermatical errors? Summary of â€˜Namadhu MGRâ€™ component As The Hindu points out here, the summary of the â€˜Namadhu MGRâ€™ component in the order does not give an explanation as to why only Rs 4 crore had been accounted for, while the deposit scheme itself was worth about Rs 14 crore. Others have started noticing already. Subramanian Swamy tweeted this earlier this morning: Â In my Appeal to SC In JJ DA case. I will prove that the KHC judgment is a "tragedy of arithmetic errors". JJ will have to resign again if CM â€” Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) May 12, 2015 Â State's Prosecutor Acharya 'considering' SC appeal The public prosecutor in the case BV Acharya says that he has noticed the error too. "The DA will come to 16.34 crores. As against 2 cr. Therefore, glaring arithmetical error in terms calculation.Â Fundamental mistake is in totaling 10 items of the loan," he says, adding, "Since this glaring mistake has come to my notice, I'm considering all options available. If SC appeal is decided, this will be an excellent point." He also told The News Minute that a stay of the judgment is a "matter of deep consideration". Read- What draws people to Jayalalithaa? Loyalty, sycophancy or a combination of both? Read-Â Why the trial court convicted Jaya, but HC acquitted her: A simple explainer
Show us some love! Support our journalism by becoming a TNM Member - Click here.