The Special Court convicted AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa because it had failed to appreciate the materials submitted to the court by her, wrong reading of witnesses, and ignoring relevant documents in the disproportionate assets case, senior counsel L. Nageswara Rao argued before the Karnataka High Court on Friday.
Mr. Rao , who represented Ms. Jayalalaithaa, contended that there was no legal evidence to show that money had flowed from Ms. Jayalalithaa to other convicts or their business entities.
Also, there was no material to show that assets held by other convicts and the entities are her benamis , he claimed concluding arguments on appeals filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa and three others questioning their conviction. He also argued that the Special Court ignored relevant documents, the income and wealth tax returns filed by her, the receipts of subscription collected by AIADMK’s news letter Dr. Namathu MGR . There was no legal bar for collecting subscriptions, it was claimed.
Adverse impact
Claiming that Ms. Jayalalithaa’s assets were not disproportionate to her known sources of income, Mr. Rao argued that conviction had an adverse ramification on her political career as the Special Court did not appreciate the materials properly.
“The trial court in the absence of any allegation had come to the conclusion that subscription receipts were fabricated,” Mr. Rao argued, pointing out that the returns filed by the I-T authorities could not have been ignored by the trial court as the authorities had accepted them, though filed late.
On the assessment of expenditure on construction of buildings, particularly on purchase of marble, in Chennai and Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Rao said the investigating agency had calculated the expenses with “exorbitant” rates for marbles.
When the actual rate of marble was around Rs.100 per sq ft in 1994-96, the agency had quoted rates like Rs.1,800 per sq ft and Rs.5,000 sq ft, Mr. Rao contended, claiming that only Rs. 3.62 crore was spent by Ms. Jayalalithaa for the constructions, but the Special Court calculated the construction cost without considering the “actual price” of marble.