The Hindu : I was not for publicity, says Nallamma Naidu

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Feb 18, 2003

Southern States

Southern States - Tamil Nadu

I was not for publicity, says Nallamma Naidu

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI FEB. 17. Continuing his deposition before a special judge in the "disproportionate wealth case" against Jayalalithaa, the investigating officer today said he did not give room for any publicity to the seizures made during the search of the AIADMK leader's house at Poes Garden in December 1996.

During a cross-examination by the defence counsel in the court of the special judge-I, R. Rajamanickam, the investigating officer, N. Nallamma Naidu, said it was not correct to say that he took time for preparing the `observation mahazar' so that there would be publicity in the print media and television channels to the seizures. "I was not for publicity", he said. It was not correct to say that as the case was against its political rival, Ms. Jayalalithaa, the then (DMK) government paid special attention to it. Mr. Naidu agreed that in the `inventory mahazar' the evaluation of the 35 items with regard to sarees, footwear, jewellery and watches was done by his department.

He denied the suggestion that the valuation was done with a view to ensuring that the experts who evaluated the items would also give the same figures as value.

The witness said in the objections to the bail petition filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa in the case in the court of the Principal Sessions Judge, he had stated that with regard to the publicity, which she had mentioned in her application, it was "not relevant to the bail petition".

The witness said in the FIR, N. Sasikalaa and her relatives, V.N. Sudhagaran and Ilavarasi, had been mentioned as `benamis' of Ms. Jayalalithaa.

Before being included as accused in the case, their houses and those of their relatives and friends were searched and they were also questioned. It was not correct to say that as he was expecting them to turn `approvers', they were not arraigned as accused initially. In fact, one of the accused agreed to become an `approver', but he did not accept it. But there was no evidence regarding this in any document.

The investigating officer agreed that there were different figures with regard to the "disproportionate asset" as given in the `opportunity notice' given to Ms. Jayalalithaa and in the letter written to the Governor seeking sanction to prosecute her.

Also, no `opportunity notice' was given to Ms. Jayalalithaa, regarding the difference in the value of the disproportionate wealth arrived at.

After the letter seeking sanction was sent to the Governor, the statements of 13 officials who conducted the probe had been recorded.

These statements were not sent to the Governor for perusal.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

Stories in this Section

`Vote AIADMK, win preference'

Stalin to address meet in Sattankulam

DGP refuses ceremonial honour

Govt. should train women panchayat chiefs: federation

Gender sensitisation, a costly affair for hosts

I was not for publicity, says Nallamma Naidu

Don't allow VAO certificates, pass books: Congress

Karaikal ryots desperate for water

Destructive bacterium caused Periyakulam fiasco

Awards for 11 Tiruchi BHEL employees

HC turns down rejected candidate's plea