The HC had ruled in favour of the Jayalalithaa and three other accused in the case.

List of 16 errors Karnataka govt has pointed out in the Jayalalithaa DA case verdict
news Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 18:23

Days ahead of the final Supreme Court hearing on appeals against TN CM J Jayalalithaa’s acquittal in the disproportionate assetd case, the Karnataka government on Tuesday filed a petition pointing out the “errors” made by the Karnataka High Court in delivering the verdict in the case. The HC had ruled in favour of the Jayalalithaa and three other accused in the case, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran, and had acquitted them.

Here is a list of the 16 errors pointed out by the Karnataka government.

1. The Karnataka government claims that the value of disproportionate assets should add up to Rs. 16,32,36,812 instead of Rs. 2,82,36,812 as calculated by the Karnataka High Court. The Karnataka government also questions whether the loans of nationalized banks have been taken into consideration while calculating the final amount.

2. In their appeal filed in the HC against the lower court, Jayalalithaa and 3 others did not include the Karnataka government, the prosecuting agency, as a part of their appeal, which makes them non-maintainable.

3.The Karnataka government claims that the Karnataka High court “violates the principles of natural justice” by not giving opportunity to the appointed Public Prosecutor for oral hearing and giving only one day’s time for written submission during the appeal at the HC.

4. In one of the earlier hearings in a matter related to the DA case, a SC bench of three judges headed by Justice Deepak Misra had set guidelines for further hearings in the case. The Karnataka government points out that these guidelines were not followed by the HC.

5. The Karnataka government questions the High court on whether the oral arguments by a Public Prosecutor can be dispensed with as done in this case.

6. It calls the court’s finding of conspiracy and abetment ‘contradictory’ in the Jayalalithaa DA case as it opposes the evidence on record, which shows that there was a conspiracy and abetment.

7. The Karnataka government points out that the assets acquired by the companies are not part of the assets acquired by the accused which are again ‘contradictory’ to the verdict.

8. The Karnataka government states the Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act  asks the court to take into consideration assets not only in the accused's name but also in the name of others, and the court has not followed that.

9. They point out an error in calculating the percentage of disproportionate assets. It should have been held at 34.5% instead of 8.2%.

10. The Karnataka government asks why while considering the value of immovable properties purchased, the Karnataka High court only considered 97 sale deeds instead of 146 deeds. The Karnataka government states that the High Court erred in fixing the value of several properties and the income from Jayalalithaa’s businesses.

11. It also points out to Rs. 1,50,00,000 which CBI treated as illegal gratification while the High court treated them as a ‘lawful income by way of gift’.

12. The Karnataka government states that if disproportionate asset is less than 10% of the income then only the accused is entitled to an acquittal irrespective of the amount involved and length of check period. 

13. The Karnataka government questions whether the High Court made a mistake in law by reversing the well considered case and order of the trial court without properly considering the findings and detailed reasons recorded by the trial court and without recording its own cogent reasons for its conclusions.

14. The Karnataka government asks, “Does the judgement and order demonstrate that the learned judge has failed in his duties as an Appellate Judge?”

15. "Whether the judgement and order is vitiated for erroneous approach to consider material evidence on record?" asks the Karnataka government.

16. The government says that the method adopted by the judge to determine the value of disproportionate assets is erroneous and contrary to the well accepted principles.

Show us some love! Support our journalism by becoming a TNM Member - Click here.