Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
HC verdict has simplified our job: defence
By K.T. Sangameswaran
CHENNAI, DEC. 6. With the Madras High Court judgments in the two TANSI cases out, the focus of attention has now turned on the one relating to TANSI- R.R.Industries, pending before Mr. P. Anbazhagan, Special Judge- III.
Both the prosecution and defence were waiting for the High Court to pronounce its decision in the Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises cases, before proceeding further in the third case. The CB-CID suffered a major blow as the trial court rejected its report submitted after conducting further investigation.
Consequently, the case has been adjourned from time to time and now it is to be taken up on December 18. While the CB- CID appears non-committal on the future course of action, defence is of the opinion that the judgments have virtually simplified its job. It is likely to submit a copy of the High Court judgment to the Special Court as the third case is almost similar to the TANSI land deals. The nature of the charges was the same and the issue of `guideline value' figured in the TANSI-R.R.Industries case too.
The CB-CID case is that during the previous AIADMK rule, the accused entered into a conspiracy to purchase the TANSI Die Castings unit at Guindy here, by grossly undervaluing the property compared to the guideline value, in favour of R.R.Industries. The transaction caused a loss of Rs.96.28 lakhs to the Government.
The then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of TANSI, Mr. T. R.Srinivasan, who was acquitted by the High Court, is the main accused in the R.R.Industries land deal. The other accused are the then Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister, Mr. R. Karpoorasundarapandian, who was also set free by the High Court, a former Special Deputy Collector (stamps), Mr. A. Jameel Basha, and the company's Managing Director, Mr. R. Ravi.
Defence seems to draw strength from the points in the High Court verdict that TANSI property is neither a trust property, nor is it under government control. The TANSI is the absolute owner. The Chairman and Managing Director cannot be faulted for the board decision accepting the sale. The High Court has also said that the term `market value' itself is vague and a matter of guesswork; nor has it been defined in the Indian Stamp Act.
A defence lawyer said that in the R.R.Industries case, there was no fixed guideline value for the survey number on which the property was located.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Southern States
|
