'No mathematical error,' Jaya justifies acquittal in Rs 66-cr disproportionate assets case

New Delhi: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Monday asserted in the Supreme Court that there was no ‘mathematical error’ in the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting her and three others in Rs 66 crore disproportionate assets case warranting interference by the apex court.

In her response to the appeal filed by the Karnataka government challenging her acquittal stating that there was an apparent mathematical error in the judgment, Jayalalithaa questioned Karnataka’s locus standi to file this appeal as she said that only the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, the prosecuting agency had the right to file an appeal.

She said beyond the role of appointing a special public prosecutor, Karnataka had no other role in prosecuting the appeal.

In its appeal the State had pointed out that the single judge committed a grave mistake in totalling 10 items of loan by arriving at a figure of Rs 24,17,31,274, when actually on proper totalling the same ought to be Rs 10,67,31,274 resulting in erroneous decision that disproportionate assets was only 8.12 per cent of the income.

It said that according to the single judge the disproportionate assets was Rs 37,59,02,466 and income Rs 34,76,65,654 and since the DA was only Rs. 2,82,32,812 which is 8.12 per cent in excess of the income, he was acquitting the accused. If the error in totalling alone is corrected the DA comes to Rs 16,32,36,812 which is 76.70 per cent of the income.

Jayalalithaa denied that there was any grave mathematical calculation of the loans received by the accused during the check period. The loans received are based on documents and the judgment had discussed in detail the loans advanced to the accused/firms. The findings of the High Court that the loans received are income leaves no manner of doubt about what has been decided. Hence the statement that there has been gross mathematical miscalculation of the loans was incorrect.

She said even assuming without admitting that there are certain mistakes in calculation, there will not be any change in the judgment of acquittal. Further it is highly improper for Mr. B.V. Acharya, on behalf of Karnataka, to state that giving one day’s time to file written submissions has in any way violated principles of natural justice.

Jayalalithaa said that the High Court had rightly rejected the charge that the other accused Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhagaran and six firms floated were benamis holding properties on her behalf. The charge of conspiracy and abetment had also been rejected by the High Court. The High Court had considered the entire evidence and had come to the conclusion that the trial court verdict sentencing her and others to four years imprisonment was incorrect and had rendered a finding of acquittal, which should not be interfered with by the apex court. The judgment was unassailable and Karnataka has not made out tenable grounds as to how these findings suffer from error of law.

On the question of interim relief as sought by Karnataka, she said so long as the order of acquittal is not set aside she cannot be subjected to disabilities (of disqualification) upon conviction.

It must be noted that she contested the election after acquittal and won by a massive majority trouncing all her opponents who could not even secure deposit. “The will of the people could not be defeated by the apex court by staying the judgment acquitting her,” she said and sought dismissal of the appeal.