Thursday, Feb 27, 2003
Thursday, Feb 27, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By K.T. Sangameswaran
During questioning, which continued for the second day in the court of R. Rajamanickam, special judge-I, she said, Mr. Karunanidhi, using his powers, engaged several police officials in the investigation of the case. Witnesses and their relatives and officials were harassed and threatened, and atrocities perpetrated. The investigating officer, N. Nallamma Naidu, who continued to do this was given extension of service as if there was no other police officer to handle the case. Ms. Sasikalaa charged that officers with DMK leanings had foisted the case. The father-in-law of V.C. Perumal, retired Additional Director-General of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, was a DMK MP. The other two accused, V.N. Sudhagaran and Ilavarasi, also said the case was foisted on them. After completion of questioning, the judge wanted to know whether the accused had defence witnesses to be examined. Counsel replied that the evidence of three witnesses would be let in.
`Conspiracy'
Responding to a question on the filing of a complaint by the Janata Party leader, Subramanian Swamy, in connection with the alleged disproportionate wealth against Ms. Jayalalithaa, in the court of the principal sessions judge, Ms. Sasikalaa, a close associate of the AIADMK leader, said Dr. Swamy and Mr. Karunanidhi had conspired and foisted the case. On evaluation of a `pandal' put up for the wedding of Mr. Sudhagaran, Ms. Sasikalaa said the prosecution witness, K.P. Muthusamy, a former PWD Chief Engineer, was the father-in-law of the former Palani MP, Karvendhan, who belonged to the then Tamil Maanila Congress. For political reasons, the witness tendered false evidence. Ms. Sasikalaa submitted that for the wedding, the bride's side had borne a major portion of the expenditure. Mr. Sudhagaran also said the expenditure was borne only by his wife's side. On the evidence of another witness, Thangaraj, who put the wedding expenditure as Rs. 5.91 crores, Ms. Sasikalaa said the report was `comical'. Ms. Sasikala said she hailed from an affluent family, which owned landed property. `Gemini' Vasan had worked in a printing press run by the family. The investigating agency had deliberately not taken these facts into account.
`Sarees brought from outside'
On evaluation of a total of over 7,000 clothing items, including 914 silk sarees, found at the Poes Garden residence here, neither she nor Ms. Jayalalithaa, who Ms. Sasikalaa described as `sagothari' (sister), was present during searches. In their absence, sarees were brought from outside to inflate the value. There was no place to stock so many sarees. Pictures of the recovery were taken to tarnish the image of the accused and a `drama' was enacted by the then rulers. On a videograph of the alleged acquisition of land by the accused and of the Poes Garden residence, Ms. Sasaikalaa said the articles shown in the video were not found in the house. Twice, the judge asked Mr. Sudhagaran to apply his mind before answering questions.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
