Jayalalithaa took Rs 1 salary, but had Rs 66 crores: Karnataka Public Prosecutor

New Delhi: Karnataka Public Prosecutor and senior advocate B.V. Acharya on Wednesday questioned in the Supreme Court as to how the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa who was receiving a salary of one rupee a month for 27 months during 1991 to 1996 could amass disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs 66 crores.

Continuing his arguments before a Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitav Roy, senior counsel argued that under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden of proving the legal means of income was on the accused but in this case they could not do so.

He said the other accused floated benami companies and acquired wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income. As sought by the Bench on Tuesday Mr. Acharya produced a chart of the loans obtained by the accused in various banks during the check period and how the amounts were treated as income by the trial court and High Court.

Finding fault in the High Court verdict acquitting the four accused, Jayalalihtaa, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhagaran, Mr. Acharya said the trialcourt had rendered a finding on each of the counts of assets and expenses and came to the conclusion that about Rs 53 crores was the disproportionate assets after accounting Rs 13 crores towards expenses but the High Court had reversed the findings.

He pointed out that the single judge committed a grave mistake in totaling 10 items of loan by arriving at a figure of Rs 24,17,31,274 when actually on proper totaling, 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.

He said 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 totaling alone is corrected the DA comes to Rs 16,32,36,812 and DA is 76.70 per cent to income.
The judge further erred in holding that the loans from nationalised banks were not taken into consideration by the prosecuting agency.