The Hindu : I was not guided by then rulers: Nallamma Naidu

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 22, 2003

Southern States

Southern States - Tamil Nadu

I was not guided by then rulers: Nallamma Naidu

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI FEB. 21. Cross-examination of the investigating officer (IO) in the "disproportionate wealth case" against Jayalalithaa ended in a special court here today with his denying a defence suggestion that he registered the first information report under the `guidance' of the then rulers (DMK), who wanted to wreak political vengeance on her.

N. Nallamma Naidu, a retired Superintendent of Police of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, did not agree with defence counsel, who said he had discussed the case off and on with the powers that be and that he had also taken their guidance. Mr. Naidu denied the counsel suggestion that he or his department harassed witnesses and their family members, and obtained statements. He did not twist the case to make it appear it was big, nor did he wantonly show in the documents a reduced income and an increased personal expenditure for the accused.

Mr. Naidu said that he was above politics. When counsel asked him whether he knew that the DMK organ, Murasoli, appreciated him on February 6 (day after chief examination of the witness commenced), he replied in the negative. Also he did not know about the newspaper carrying a cartoon about him today.

It would not be correct to say 48 prosecution witnesses had tendered evidence before the court on property, which was not at all connected with the case. He did not agree with counsel, who said he had not taken into account the agricultural income of the accused.

In the "opportunity notice" sent to Ms. Jayalalithaa, even prior to receipt of the valuation report by the DVAC from the assistant engineer, Public Works department, on the wedding of her erstwhile foster son, V.N. Sudhagaran (cited as third accused), the expenditure was arrived at by the investigating agency after examining witnesses, including Sivaji Ganesan's son, Ramkumar.

The witness said that when he examined Ms. Jayalalithaa in the Chennai Central Prison (where she was lodged in connection with the "colour television case"), she said she had spent only a `negligible' amount on the wedding and that the bride's side had borne the major portion of the expenditure. He knew from documents that Ms. Jayalalithaa had given 13 different kinds of jewellery for betrothal.

The witness said that in his 40-year experience, in no case had an Inspector-General of Police himself registered the FIR. R. Rajamanickam, special judge - I, adjourned the case to February 24.

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

Southern States

Stories in this Section

Campaign reaches its peak in Sattankulam

Accord top priority to IT, agriculture: Kalam

President declines assent to Special Courts Bill

Bishop-CM meeting fails to break the ice

College clarifies on Hindu report

I was not guided by then rulers: Nallamma Naidu

631 to be disqualified for not submitting local bodies poll expenditure

Rs. 2-lakh compensation to wife of custodial death victim

EC directive on voter identity in Sattankulam

Hearing on AIADMK's petition adjourned