Front Page
Jayalalithaa, others acquitted in TANSI, hotel cases
By Our Tamil Nadu Bureau
CHENNAI, DEC. 4. In sensational judgments that brightened the political prospects of the AIADMK leader, Ms. Jayalalithaa, the Madras High Court today acquitted her and all others, including her friend, Ms. N. Sasikalaa, of all charges in the TANSI land deal and Pleasant Stay Hotel cases.
Delivering the all-important verdict in the TANSI land deal cases, Mr. Justice N. Dinakar set aside the conviction and the sentences (which had made Ms. Jayalalithaa ineligible to contest polls) and ruled, ``Bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid by them shall be refunded.''
In the Pleasant Stay Hotel case, Mr. Justice Dinakar doubted the very existence of the dissenting additional note of the Municipal Administration Secretary, Mr. P.C. Cyriac, and also noted that the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of mens rea (guilty mind) in the entire process.
`I was innocent'
Reacting to the judgment, Ms. Jayalalithaa said, ``The fact that I have been acquitted in all the three cases is entirely due to God's grace. God has been very kind to me. Ever since these cases were foisted on me, I have been consistently maintaining that these were false cases and that I was innocent of any wrongdoing. I am very happy that this has been proved true.''
``We respect justice. I respect justice much more than a judge. Hence, there is nothing more to say about this,'' the DMK president, Mr. M. Karunanidhi, said. ``Justice involves a long journey,'' he added.
Swamy to move SC
However, the Janata Party president, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, who was allowed to make written submissions in the appeal proceedings, said that he would move the Supreme Court against the acquittals.
The judgments effectively removed the electoral disqualification Ms. Jayalalithaa faced due to the conviction, and cleared the decks for her to contest the polls again.
The verdict marked the rejection of almost all the key arguments advanced by the Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.V. Venkatapathi, including those relating to the ownership of the TANSI properties, the guideline value-market value factor and the ``signature'' of Ms. Jayalalithaa in the sale deed.
``The entirety of the evidence let in by the prosecution does not establish even a single link to show that the conspirators agreed to have the property sold or purchased at lesser price so as to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain...,'' the judge observed.
Ruling out the prosecution claim that the ownership of the TANSI property vested with the Government, he said, ``TANSI property was neither a trust property, nor was it under the control of the Government. The sale deed mentions that the vendor was TANSI and it was the absolute owner of the property.''
The trial judge was not justified in taking the market value to arrive at the conclusion that a huge loss was caused to the State exchequer. He said, ``It is clear that the guideline value and market value are two different concepts and that the term `market value' is vague, uncertain and a matter of guess-work.''
No sinister motive: Judge
``In view of the failure of the prosecution to show that the guideline value is Rs. 7.32 lakhs per ground of TANSI Foundry land, and in view of the positive defence evidence that the value is only Rs. 3 lakhs, no sinister motive can be seen in the transaction, especially when the sale was by open tender,'' Mr. Justice Dinakar maintained.
Also, there was no conclusive evidence that the signature found in the document was that of Ms. Jayalalithaa. The prosecution did not prove that by sending the document to a hand- writing expert. ``Even if it is assumed that Ms. Jayalalithaa had signed in the sale agreement, it cannot be taken as the factor to hold that there was a conspiracy since I have held that the property was not purchased at a lesser price,'' the judge added.
There must be a specific law prohibiting a public servant from purchasing a property and if the said public servant is not bound by any law, then his act does not become illegal, he said while dealing with the prosecution charge against Ms. Jayalalithaa under Sec. 169 IPC (prohibiting a public servant from buying government property).
`Code of conduct won't apply'
Noting that the terminology ``legally bound not to...'' has not been defined in the Code of Conduct for public servants, Mr. Justice Dinakar said the definition of the term ``legally bound to do...'' found in Section 43 IPC could not be imported to the Section in question. Also, Ms. Jayalalithaa did not attract provisions of the Code since the Supreme Court had also held that the property owned by the Corporation could not be treated as property of the Government.
Since the ``prosecution could not successfully establish the offences with which the appellants/accused were convicted'', Mr. Justice Dinakar set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon them.
Last year the Special Court-III had convicted Ms. Jayalalithaa, Ms. Sasikalaa and four others to three years and two years imprisonment in the Jaya Publications and the Sasi Enterprises cases respectively. Although the sale transactions took place in 1991-92, the cases against them were filed only when the DMK came to power in 1992. The main charge was that the two (as partners in the firms) committed criminal misconduct by purchasing the land (by undervaluation) and four others, mainly officials, abetted in the conspiracy.
In the Pleasant Stay hotel case, Ms. Jayalalithaa and four others were charged with granting exemption to a seven- storey building at Kodaikanal, violating rules. The Special Court-II had convicted her last year to a year's imprisonment, while sentencing others to two-year imprisonment. There are a total of 18 appeals arising out of these three cases, and 17 were taken up for hearing since one appellant in the Hotel case, Palai Shanmugam, died later.
Highlights of Judgment
* It is TANSI, not the Government, which is the absolute owner of its property; and it suffered no economic loss from the deal.
* There is no specific law prohibiting public servants from purchasing Government property.
* Market value is vague and a matter of guess work, clearly different from guideline value.
* Prosecution failed to establish that the guideline value of the TANSI property was Rs. 7.32 lakhs.
* In the Pleasant Stay Hotel case, the judge raised doubts over the very existence of Mr. Cyriac's dissenting note against the G.O.
* Proposal to amend the building rules came from the Advocate-General, and not from Ms. Jayalalithaa and Mr. Selvaganapathy.
* No illegal gratification discovered and no mens rea (guilty mind) involved in the process.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Front Page
|
