New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday posted for final arguments in the $3,00,000 gift case' against former Tamil nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, who was exonerated by the Madras high court.
A bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitav Roy posted the matter for final hearing after Additional Solicitor General R.S. Patwalia, appearing for the CBI presented the genesis of the case from the trial court upto the high court, which quashed the proceedings in the ‘gift case' against Ms Jayalalithaa and two other accused and as to why the CBI filed the appeal. The ASG said the high court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet on the grounds of delay. Senior counsel Shekar Naphade, appeared for Ms Jayalalithaa.
The CBI’s case was that Ms Jayalalithaa accepted demand drafts totally valued at Rs 1.48 crore on her birthday in 1992 without consideration from persons with whom she had official transactions or business contacts. Besides her, the former Agriculture minister K.A. Sengottaiyan and a former Minister, Azhagu Thirunavukkarasu, were cited as accused for abetment.
The FIR was registered by the CBI on the allegation of receipt of 89 demand drafts by Ms Jayalalithaa from 57 persons including a foreign DD for US $3,00,000 totalling Rs 2 crore. But, when charge sheet was filed it was restricted to 21 persons including Mr Sengottaiyan and Mr Thirunavukkarasu and the value of the DDs was put at Rs 1.48 crore. The high court quashed the FIR and chargehseet on the ground of unexplained delay.
The CBI’s appeal is against the common judgement dated September 30, 2011. Its allegation against Ms Jayalalithaa was that she received a remittance of $3,00,000 by way of a demand draft dated December 23, 1991, issued by Bankers Trust Company, New York, drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, St. Halia, and Jersey.
The CBI contended that though the offence occurred in 1992, it came to the notice of the Income Tax department only in 1996 and was duly communicated to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary for taking action. As such there was no delay. The high court ought to have seen that as per the allegation in the FIR, detailed investigation was to be conducted in the U.S., the U.K. and the UAE, and this exercise consumed considerable time for finalising the investigation.
But the HC erroneously held that there was no explanation for a further delay of six years (after filing the FIR) in filing the charge sheet. In the light of materials available and without testing the same in the trial, the proceedings could not be quashed merely on the ground of delay, the CBI said and prayed for quashing the impugned judgement.
