STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & Ors.

Judgment

) PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947: s.5(1)(e) - Interpretation of - Held: A bare perusal of clause (e) of s.5(1) of 1947 Act reveal that the criminal misconduct of the public servant, as envisaged therein, would ensue if he/she or any person on his/her behalf was in possession or had, at any point of time during the period of his/her office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property, disproportionate to his/her known sources of income, which the public servant cannot sati!>factorily account - Significantly, for such misconduct, the possession of the disproportionate pecuniary resources or property, which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account, can be held either by him/her or any person on his/her behalf is essential - This offence thus, enfolds in its sweep a definitive involvement and role of persons other than the public servant, either as a abetter or a co-conspirator in the actualisation of the crime - Consequently, thus such abettors or co-conspirators or partners in this item of offence, if proved, cannot escape the legal consequences for their participatory role. F CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.452 - Invocation of s.452 by special judge under PC Act to order confiscation/for.f'eiture of the properties otherwise attached under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 - Permissibility of - Held: Permissible - In terms of s.5(6), Special Judge is . G authorised to exercise all powers and/unctions exercisable by a District Judge under the Ordinance - Jn the instant case, the o.f)ences at the trial were u/ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) of the PC Act, ss.109 and 120B !PC encompassed within paragraphs 4A and 5 of the Schedule to the Ordinance - These offences were unimpeachably within the contours of the PC Act and triable by a special Judge thereunder - H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 531 Therefore, the order of confiscation/forfeiture of the properties A standing in the name of six companies, as involved, made by the trial court is sustainable - Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. CRIMINAL LAW: Conspiracy - Proof of - Held: A conspiracy can be proved B by circumstantial evidence as having regard to the nature of the offending act, no direct evidence can be expected. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136 - Scope of interference with an order of acquittal/ C conviction under Art.136 of the Constitution - Held: Once the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the lower court was clearly unreasonable, then that by itself would be a compelling reason for interference - It is a courts duty to convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, no less than it is its duty to acquit the accused when such D guilt is not so established. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: s.45 - Expert opinion/evidence - Probative. worth of - Held: An expert is one who has made a subject upon which he speaks or . E renders his opinion, a matter of particular study, practice or observation and has a special knowledge thereof- His knowledge must be within the recognized field of expertise and he essentially has to be qualified in that discipline of study - It has been propounded that an expert is not a witness of fact and its evidence is really of an advisory character and it is his duty to furnish to the Judge/Court the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge/Court to .form his/its independent judgment by the application of such criteria to the facts proved by the evidence - By virtue of s.45 of the Evidence Act 1872, which makes the opinion of an expert admissible, not only an expert must possess necessary special skill and experience in his discipline, his opinion must be backed by reason and has to be examined and cross-examined to ascertain the probative worth thereof - The evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion has been reached - The Court is H F G 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 5 S.C.R. A not to subjugate its own judgment to that of the expert or delegate its authority to a third party but ought to assess the evidence of the expert like any other evidence. BENAMI TRANSACTIONS: Courts are usually guided by the following circumstances: The source from which the purchase money came; The nature of possession of the property, after the purchase; Notice, if any. for giving the transaction a benami colour; The position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamdar; The custody of the title-deeds after the sale; and The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property ajter the sale. PENAL CODE, 1860: s.109 - Private individual can also be prosecuted/or offence uls.109. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: B c D Anti-corruption laws - Any interpretation of the provisions of anti-corruption laws has to be essentially pwposive, in .fi1rtherance of its mission and not in retrogression thereof (Per Amitava Roy, J.) E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: Per Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.:

1.1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 5 defined criminal misconduct by a public servant. Noticeably, by Section 6 of Act 40 of 1964 i.e. the Anti Corruption Law (Amendment) Act, 1964, amongst others, the following insertion by way of clause (e) was incorporated in Section 5. "if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account,. of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.". A bare perusal of clause (e) of Section 5(1) of 1947 Act would reveal that the criminal misconduct of the public servant, as envisaged therein, would ensue if he/she or any person on his/ F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 533 her behalf was in possession or had, at any point of time during A the period of his/her office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property, disproportionate to his/her known sources of income, which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. Significantly, for such misconduct, the possession of the disproportionate pecuniary resources or property, which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account, can be held either by him/her or any person on his/her behalf. This offence thus; enfolds in its sweep a definitive involvement and role of persons other than the public servant, either as a abettor or a co conspirator in the actualisation of the crime. Consequently, thus such abettors or co-conspirators or partners in this item of C offence, if proved, cannot escape the legal consequences for their participatory role. [Paras 139, 140) [742-F-H; 743-A-CI B K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police and others 120031 s Suppl. SCR 610 : (2004) 3 sec 767 - referred to.

1.2 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The 1947 Act was succeeded by a new version of anti corruption law in the form of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988, which seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this statute, referred to the provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with public servants and those who abet the offences mentioned therein, by way of criminal misconduct. The provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 enabling attachment of ill gotten wealth, obtained through corrupt means, was also adverted to. The Bill was clearly contemplated to incorporate all these provisions with necessary modifications, so as to make those more effective in combating corruption amongst public servants. With that end in view, the ambit of "public servant" was sought to be expanded. Additionally, the offences hitherto enumerated in Sections 161 to 165A IPC were recommended to be incorporated in the legislation with enhanced penalties. Finality of the order of the Trial Court upholding the grant of sanction for prosecution and provision for day to day trial of cases were also integrated as few other unique features of the initiative. [Paras H D E F G 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A 142, 143) (743-E-F, H; 744-A-C) B c

1.3 Sections 7 to 12 of the Act correspond to Section 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, thereby integrating the offences in the legislation to be tried by a special forum as envisaged. Resultantly, Sections 161 to 165A have been effaced from the Indian Penal Code for obvious reasons. Explanation to Section 13(i)(e) makes it limpid that the known sources of income of the public servant, to satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources or the property otherwise alleged to be disproportionate thereto, has to be from a lawful source and further that the receipt thereof had been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rule or orders for the time being applicable to him/her, as the case may be. This prescription indubitably emphasizes the lawfulness or legitimacy of the income to enable the public servant to satisfactorily account for the pecuniary resources or property otherwise imputed to be disproportionate thereto. Not only the D Act entertains presumption against the public servant, in the eventualities as comprehended in Section 20 of the Act, it is clarified in Section 28 that nothing in the statute would exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might apart from the Act, be instituted against him or her. Section 29, amongst others has substituted in paragraph 4A of the Ordinance, an offence punishable under the 1988 Act, in lieu of the offence under Section 5 of the 1947 Act. [Para 1531 (747-B-El E Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra Etc. v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and Another Etc. (1969] 3 SCR 130 : (1969) 3 SCC 429 - referred to.

#2. CONSPIRACY A conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence as having regard to the nature of the offending act, no direct evidence can be expected. [Para 161) (750-D-El Saju v. State of Kerala [2000) 4 Suppl. SCR 621: (2001) 1 SCC 378; Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra [1971) 1 SCR 119 : (1970) 1 SCC 696; Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab [1978) 1 SCR 781 : (1977) 4 SCC 540; Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2003) 1 SCR F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 535 119 : (2003) 3 SCC 641; Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. v. State of Kera/a (2001) 7 SCC 596; Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation [20091 13 SCR 124 : (2009) 15 SCC 643 - relied on. Regina v. Murphy (1837) 173 ER 502 - referred to.

#3. Approach of Court in PC Cases A B The history of the enactment of the 1947 Act was traced in *R.S. Nayak and a caveat was sounded to the effect that whenever a question of construction arises upon ambiguity or if two views are possible of a provision of an anti corruption law (then Act 1947), it would be the duty of the Court to adopt that construction C which would advance the object underlying the statute, namely to make effective the provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption and at any rate not to defeat it. It was underscored that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the statute D and the overall public interest and the social object is to be borne in mind while interpreting the various provisions thereof and in deciding cases under the same. [Para 1671 (752-A-CI *R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (198412SCR495: (1984) 2 SCC 183; State of MP. & Ors. v. Ram Singh (2000( 1 SCR 579 : (2000) 5 SCC 88; Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal & Am: v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 4 SCR 767 : (2013) 4 SCC 642; Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Am: [2014[ 6 SCR 873 : (2014) 8 SCC 682 - relied on.

#4. Probative worth of Income Tax Proceedings qua lawfulness of the source of income E F Even assuming that. the income tax returns, the proceedings in connection therewith and the decisions rendered therein are r_elevant and admissible in evidence as well, nothing as such, turns G thereon definitively as those do not furnish any guarantee or authentication of the lawfulness of the source(s) of income, the pith of the charge levelled against the respondents. It is the plea of the defence that the income tax returns and orders, while proved by the accused persons had not been objected to by the prosecution and further it (prosecution) as well had called in H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. B A evidence the income tax returns/orders and thus, it cannot object to the admissibility of the records produced by the defence but even if such returns and orders are admissible, the probative value would depend on the nature of the information furnished, the findings recorded in the orders and having a bearing on the charge levelled. In any view of the matter however, such returris and orders would not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove the charge and can at best be pieces of evidence which have to be evaluated along with the other materials on record. Noticeably, none of the respondents has been examined on oath in the case in hand. Further, the income tax returns relied upon by the defence as well as the orders passed in the proceedings pertaining thereto have been filed/passed after the charge-sheet had been submitted. Significantly, there is a charge of conspiracy and abetment against the accused persons. In the overall perspective therefore neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the accused persons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by Section 13(l)(e) of the Act. [Para 176) [755-A-Fl c D E F G H Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) ITR 194; Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. C.I. T., Andhra Pradesh [1980) SCR 618 : (1980) Suppl. SCC 13; Iqbal Singh Marwah & Am: v. Meenakshi Marwah & Am: [20051 2 SCR 708 : (2005) 4 SCC 370; CIT Patia/a v. Piara Singh [1980) SCR 1122 : 1980 Supp. SCC 166; State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors. [2014) I SCR 135 : (2014) 11 SCC 709; Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. S.C. Kothari [1972[ 1 SCR 950 : (1972) 4 SCC 402; Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. [2007) 3 SCR 448 : (2007) 4 sec 380 - relied on. State of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar [2006[ 8 Suppl. SCR 319 : (2006) 8 SCC 693 - referred to. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 537 Gower - Modern Company Law - 4th Edn. (1979) (page 137); Company Law by Pennington - 5th Edition 1985 at page 53; American Professor L. Maurice Wormser in his article "Piercing the veil of corporate entity" - referred to. A

#5. Gift, if Lawful Source of Income for a holder of Public B Office: This Court in * R.S. Nayak case amongst others dealt with the distinctive features of Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code. It enunciated that under the former Section, a present is taken by a public servant as a motive or reward for c abuse of office but under the latter, the question of motive or reward is wholly immaterial and acceptance of a valuable thing without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person who has or is likely to have any business to be transacted is forbidden because though not taken as a motive or reward for showing any official favour, it is likely to influence the public D servant to show official favour to the person giving such valuable thing. With the advent of the Act 1988, Sections 161 to 165A have been omitted from the Code as those have been essentially engrafted in the said Statute and thus the essence and spirit thereof seemingly have a bearing on the constituents of Section E 13 of the Act. This would comport to the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the legislation, which envisaged widening of the scope of the definition of the expression "public servant" and incorporation of the offences under Sections 161 to 165A in the Act. As a corollary, while applying Section 13 thereof in the facts of the given case, the attributes of the offences contained in erstwhile Sections 161 to 165A of the IPC cannot be totally disregarded. [Paras 201, 2021 [765-D-F, H; 766-A-BI F Yash Pal Goel v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2009) 310 ITR 75 (P&H); Smt. Kusumlata Thakral v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2010) 327 ITR 424 (P&H); Commissioner of Income Tax I'. Sandeep Goyal (2014) 369 ITR 471 (P&H); Income Tax Officer v. Mukesh Bhanubhai Shah (2009) 318 (AT) 394 (ITAT IMuml); Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore 119951 2 SCR G H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A 1173 : (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 453 - referred to.

#6. Burden of proof and benefits of doubt That the burden to prove a charge is on the prosecution subject to the defence of insanity and any other statutory exception. That proof beyond reasonable doubt is only a guideline B and not a fetish and that a guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers from infirmity, when projected through human processes. [Paras 203, 2061 [766-C; 767-FI c D Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1974) 1 SCR 489 : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. v. D. Bhoormall [1974) 3 SCR 833 : (1974) 2 SCC 544; lnder Singh & Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration) [19781 3 SCR 393 : (1978) 4 SCC 161; Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura [20141 4 SCR 287 : (2014) 4 sec 747 - relied on. Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 - referred to.

#7. Interpretation of the expression "satisfactorily account" in the context of the offence of misconduct under Section 5(l)(e) E of Act of 1947 and Section 13(l)(e) of Act 1988 This Court in **C.S.D. Swami v. The State held that the test of plausible explanation was inapplicable, as under this statute, the accused person was required to satisfactorily account for the the pecuniary resources or property possession of F disproportionate to its own sources of income and that the word "satisfactorily" used by the legislature deliberately did cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came to acquire his large wealth but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. [Para G 211] [768-F-G; 769-B) **C.S.D. Swami v. The State [1960) 1 SCR 461; [19631 M Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kera/a Suppl. 2 SCR 724; State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar [1981) 3 SCR 675 : (1981) 3 SCC 199; K. Ponnuswamy v. State of T. N. [20011 1 H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 539 Suppl. SCR 97 : (2001) 6 SCC 674; P. Nallammal & Anr: v. State [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 135 : (1999) 6 SCC 559; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India & Ors. [19911 3 SCR 189 : (1991) 3 SCC 655; V.D. Jhingan v. State 3 SCR 736; of Uttar Pradesh N. Ramakrishnaiah (dead) through LRs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [20081 14 SCR 733 ; (2008) 17 SCC 83; State of MP. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. [20031 5 Suppl. SCR 672 : (2004) 1 SCC 691 - relied on. [19661 A B Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana [1975] 3 SCR 453 : (1975) 3 sec 742 - referred to. 8. Scope of interference with an order of acquittal/conviction c under Article 136 of the Constitution of India In *** Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Kanataka, this Court held that once the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the lower court was clearly unreasonable, then D that by itself would be a compelling reason for interference. It was highlighted that it is a court's duty to convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, no less than it is its duty to acquit the accused when such guilt is not so established. [Para 231] [777-D, F-GI ***Ramaiah @Rama v. State of Kanataka 12014] 7 SCR 995 : (2014) 9 SCC 365; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chet Ram & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 425; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham & Anr: [19791 3 SCR 482 : (1979) 2 SCC 297; State of Maharashtra v. Narsinghrao Gangaram Pimple, (1984) 1 SCC 446; State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh [20031 2 Suppl. SCR 593 : (2003) 11 SCC 271; Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas & Anr: [2013] 7 SCR 1105 : (2013) 12 SCC 796; State of U.P. v. Gokaran & Ors., 1984 Suppl. SCC 482; Mst. Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 SCR 280 : (1976) 4 SCC 158; Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [20071 2 SCR 630 : (2007). 4 SCC 415; Shea Swarup v. R. Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979( 2 SCR 265 : (1979) 1 sec 355 - relied on. E F G H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c D Harbans Singh & Am: v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 439 : [19621 Suppl. SCR 104 - referred to.

#9. Benami transactions: There has to be either some direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence to raise an inference that the property alleged to be benami had been purchased with the funds/ resources of someone other than the person in whose name the property is shown in the document. In the instant case, there was also a charge of conspiracy and abetment and, therefore, the factors as above would have to be tested on the anvil of the overall circumstances to ascertain as to whether a reasonable inference therefrom can be drawn of a benami transaction as alleged. This is more so as by the very nature of the offence of conspiracy, the activities in connection therewith are expectedly hatched in secrecy. (Paras 233, 234) [777-G; 778-G-H; 779-A-BI Jaydayal Poddar (deceased) through L.Rs. & Am: v. Mst. Bibi Hazara 119741 1 SCR 70 : (1974) 1 SCC 3 - relied on.

#10. PROBATIVE WORTH OF EXPERT EVIDENCE E F An expert is one who has made a subject upon which he speaks or renders his opinion, a matter of particular study, practice or observation and has a special knowledge thereof. His knowledge must be within the recognized field of expertise and he essentially has to be qualified in that discipline of study. It has been propounded that an expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character and it is his duty to furnish to the Judge I Court the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge/ Court to form his/its independent judgment by the application of such criteria to the facts proved by the evidence. Referring to Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1892, which makes the opinion of G an expert admissible, it has been underlined th at not only an expert in his must possess necessary special skill and experience discipline, his opinion must be backed by reason and has to be examined and cross-examined to ascertain the probative worth thereof. That it would be unsafe to convict the person charged H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 541 on the basis of expert oprn1on without any independent A corroboration has also been indicated. It has been held that the evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion has been reached. The decisions underline that the Court is not to subjugate its own judgment to that of the B expert or delegate its authority to a third party but ought to assess the evidence of the expert like any other evidence. [Para 2351 1779-C, D-H; 780-Al Mahmood v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542; Chatt Ram v. State of Haryana (1980) 1 SCC 460; State of H.P. v. Jai Lal & Ors. [19991 2 Suppl. SCR 318 : (1999) 7 SCC 280; Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited & Ors. 12009j 14 SCR 424 : (2009) 9 sec 709; Dayal Singh & Ors. V. State ol Uttaranchal [20121 10 SCR 157 : (2012) 8 SCC 263 - relied on. State of H.P. v. Jai Lal [19991 2 Suppl. SCR 318 : (1999) 7 sec 280 - referred to. 11. Hears.ay evidence can be used to corroborate substantive evidence. [Para 2361 [780-Bj Pawan Kumar v. State of HmJ'ana [20031 1 Suppl. SCR 710: (2003) 11 SCC 241; Krishnanand Agnihotri v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 769 : (1977) 1 sec 816 - referred to. 12. The respondent Al has been charged with the offence of conspiracy as well as criminal misconduct under Section 13(l)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and A2 to A4 in particular, of conspiracy and abetment in the commission of the above offence under the Act. There are basically four broad heads for scrutiny: (1) Income (2) Expenditure (3) Assets (4) Conspiracy and abetment. !Para 2401 1781-E-H; 782-A-BI

12.1 INCOME: It was urged on behalf of Rl/ Al that her claim of income of Rs.52,50,000/- under head of Agriculture income stood proved wholly on the basis of the relevant income tax returns and the c D E F G H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. B A orders passed thereon. The High Court had readily accepted this evidence and had thereby enhanced the income of Al under this head to Rs.52,50,000/- by adding Rs.46,71,600/- to the sum of Rs.5, 78,340/- mentioned by the DVAC. In absence of any independent evidence in support of this claim, having regard to the state of law that income tax returns/orders are not automatically binding on a criminal court, the effortless acceptance thereof by the High Court is in disregard to this settled legal proposition. Thereby the High Court has accorded unassailable primacy to such income tax returns/orders and have made those final and binding on the criminal court without any appreciation of the legal postulations that income tax returns/orders passed thereon are not binding on criminal court and that the facts involved are to be proved on the basis of independent evidence and that the income tax returns/orders are only relevant and [Paras 254, 255) [786-D-Hl nothing further. c D

12.2 LOANS: The second additional head of income involved by the respondents constituted loans in addition to the bank loans cited by DVAC as taken note of by the High Court to add Rs.18,17,46,000 to the income of the respondents. This item of income significantly is suggestive of the ·collective orientation of the respondents qua the charge as one corporate unit. The tone and tenor of the contents of the applications for loan and the composition of the firms/companies availing the benefit thereof, suggest that the respondents were in collaboration with each other in the transactions which demonstrate their combined involvement therein. As the impugned judgment of the High Court revealed, it referred to generally the testimony of PW 182 and PW 259 and had observed that the respondents had borrowed loans from the banks as well as from the private parties which however were not taken into consideration. While noting the loans availed by the respondents from different firms .and companies, as named therein, the High Court did, however limit itself only to the loans borrowed from the nationalised banks but wrongly totalled the amounts to inflate figure to Rs.24,17,31,274/ which in fact ought to have been Rs.10,67,31,224/- on a correct thereafter, adjusting arithmetic. The High Court, E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVl J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 543 Rs.5,99,85,274/-, i.e. the income quantified by the DVAC A added Rs.18,17,46,000/- (Rs.24,17,31,274 - Rs.5,99,85,274) to the income of the respondents. The High Court has not only erred in including the entire amount of loan encompassed in ten items, but also premised its finding on income on an inflated and patently incorrect figure of Rs.24,17,31,274/-. This addition of B Rs.18,17,46,000/- to the income of the respondents, as done by the High Court, is obviously erroneous and thus cannot be sustained. Even the High Court though had referred to private loans, availed by the respondents, it did not include the same in the total income of the respondents. The plea of the respondents that the income from private sources had not been considered at C all, is thus untenable, more particularly in absence of any challenge by them against the above exclusion by the High Court. [Paras 256, 271, 2721 [787-A-C; 791-C-Hl

12.3 GIFTS: The receipt of money or pecuniary resources in order to D qualify as income within the meaning of Section 13(1) (e) of the Act, in case of a public servant should essentially be attached to his/her official post and that any windfall or gain of graft, crime or immoral secretions prima facie would not be a receipt from the known sources of his/her income. The Trial Court was of the view that though the receipt of birthday presents by themselves might not amount to windfall or immoral secretions, the receipt of huge amount of Rs.2 crores and foreign remittance as presents and gifts, as the Chief Minister of a State, was susceptible to serious doubts and suspicion about the nature of the receipts. The fact that the practice of offering such gifts had been discontinued after 1992 and the possibility of such offerings not being made if A 1 was not in office, was pondered over. The Trial Court rejected the alleged gifts, said to have been received by Al to constitute a lawful source of income. The oral testimony of PWs 215 and 259 as to the practice of entertainment of gifts and donations qua the political figures of the states on celebratory occasions is of no consequence to ascribe any legitimacy to such receipts as a lawful source of income under the 1988 Act. In view of the incorporation of Sections 161 to 165A IPC in their letter and spirit in the 1988 Act, gifts as claimed to have been E F G H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 5 S.C.R. made to Al were not only prohibited by law, having regard to her office and the role attached thereto, but also constitute an offence thereunder. By no means, therefore, the gifts in any form, as offered to Al during the relevant period, can be construed, be accepted as a lawful source of income. Disclosure of such gifts in the income tax returns of Al and the orders of the income tax authorities on the basis thereof, do not validate the said receipts to elevate the same to lawful income to repel the charge under Section 13(1)(e) thereof. [Paras 284, 287] [795.-D-F; 797-B-E] R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Anr. [19861 2 SCR 621 : (1986) 2 sec 716 - relied on. M1: Krishna Reddy v. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad (1992) 4 sec 45; Kedari Lal V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 14 SCC 505 - held inapplicable. The Commissioner of Expenditure Tax, Andhra Pradesh v. P.V.G. Raju [19761 1SCR1017: (1976) 1 SCC 241; Sasi Ente1prises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [20141 2 SCR 175 : (2014) 5 SCC 139; Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. C.J. T., (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC); A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Am'. [19881 1 Suppl. SCR 1 : (1988) 2 SCC 602 - referred to.

#13. INCOME OF SASI ENTERPRISES BY WAY OF RENTAL INCOME, AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN.

13.1 The respondents having claimed the income of Rs.95,92,776/- as against Rs.6,15,900/- quantified by the DVAC, the onus was on them to prove the same. Even judged by the bench mark of balance of probabilities, the High Court in order to reverse the determination of the Trial Court, on the same set of evidence ought to have applied itself to examine and assess the evidence in this perspective. The High Court, having regard to its approach has failed as an appellate forum and as a higher court of facts to appreciate the evidence in the correct legal context. [Paras 300, 301 [ (798-E; 802-B-D[

13.2 Rental Income of Al A B c D E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 545 Whereas the DVAC quoted Rs.40,01,127/- to be the income A under this head, according to the defence, the same ought to have been Rs.43, 75,132/-. It has been urged on behalf of Al that she had received an amount of Rs.90000/- by way of monthly advance and Rs.2,32,000 by way of rental income during the check period. Reliance was placed on bank account statements during B the relevant period. The Trial Court accepted this evidence and noted that though the total rent paid did sum up to Rs.43,75,132/-, the prosecution had taken this figure to be Rs.40,01,127/-. It, however, declined to interfere on the ground that rental income was taxable under the Income Tax Act. The High Court, on the other hand, without any discussion of the evidence added C Rs.3,22,000/- to the rental income as the prosecution had omitted to do so. As the evidence adduced by the defence did establish that Rs.43,75,132/- had been paid as rent for the two premises in question, the High Court was justified in adding Rs.3,22,000/-. [Paras 302, 304, 305, 306[ [802-D-E; 803-A, B-DI D

13.3 Income of Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR:

13.3.1 The appellant-State took exception to the addition of an amount of Rs.4 crores by the High Court towards income of Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR in addition to the figure cited by the DVAC. The Trial Court, took into account the particulars of income of Jaya Publications as claimed by the defence for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97 sought to be proved through the oral evidence of DW 88 and various documents. The break up of the income from various sources, as furnished by the firm, disclosed that its income through scheme deposit over the above period was Rs.14,10,35,000/- and qua other sources including sales, job work, advertisements, interest, agricultural income, rentals etc. Rs.1,15,94,848/-. The Trial Court was conscious of the fact that the defence in support of its claim of the income had called in evidence the testimony of 31 witnesses, who spoke about the deposits made by them under the scheme, in addition to DW 88 and that further reliance was placed on the special audit report obtained by the income tax auth~rities, orders of the commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) as well as the balance sheets filed along with the returns. The Trial Court rightly noticed that the returns for the assessment E F G H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. B c A years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 were filed much belatedly on 6.11.1998 and that in these returns, the nature of the business of the firm "'.as shown as "printing, publishing and dealing in properties". It also noted that in the balance sheet, enclosed to the return of the year 1991-92, an amount of Rs.13,54,000/- was shown in the liability column. The amounts of Rs.82,14,000/- and Rs.3,05,40,000/-, being scheme deposit, were also shown in the liability column in the balance sheets enclosed with the returns for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The Trial Court noticed as well that the return for the assessment year 1994-95 was filed only on 17.3.1998 and that the balance sheet attached thereto, showed scheme deposit of Rs.51,31,50,00/- in the liability column. That the return for the assessment year 1995-96 was also filed only on 17.3.1999 much belatedly, was noticed as well. The Trial Court rightly mentioned that this return as well as the return for the assessment years 1996-97 did not mention about the scheme deposit. The evidence of the 31 witnesses with regard to the deposits made by them of amounts varying from Rs.12000/- to Rs.18000/- was more or less of the same model and owing allegiance to the political party. Some of them also proved their application for becoming subscribers but though they stated to have been issued receipts for the deposits made, none E produced the same. [Paras 307, 313, 314, 3151 [803-E; 805-D-H; D 806-A-E] F G

13.3.2 The Trial Court on an overall assessment of the evidence concluded that the story of scheme deposit was introduced by the defence only after the charge-sheet was filed i.e. through the income tax returns filed in the year 1998. That no evidence was produced before the Court to show that the scheme was floated in the year 1990, was recorded. While rejecting the claim of this head of income by the defence, the Trial Court sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the assessee had not produced the primary documents either before the special auditors or the assessing officers and also rejected the applications, as manufactured. The testimony of subscribers was dismissed also on the ground that they were hardened party workers. The High Court, though had traversed the above facts in lesser detail, dealt with the oral and documentary evidence that the defence claim of scheme deposit of H and noted STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 547 Rs.13,89,19,475/-, as accepted by the concerned CIT (Appeals), A was subjudice before the High Court, Madras. The High Court reiterated as well that the income tax returns for the relevant assessment years were filed very belatedly and"that no plausible explanation, therefor was forthcoming. The High Court categorically held that delayed and unexplained submission of B income tax returns did give rise to doubt of the genuineness thereof. This notwithstanding, the High Court only in the face of the oral evidence of the 31 witnesses claiming themselves to be the depositors/subscribers for the newsletter, returned a finding that the whole claim of the assessee could not be rejected only on' the ground of delay in filing of the income tax returns. Acting solely on this consideration, the High Court, thus allowed addition of a sum of Rs.4 crores as income of Jaya Publications. Considering the different phases of the process undertaken by the income tax authorities, the failure of the assessee to produce the primary documents in original before the auditors and the income tax authorities in support of such scheme deposit and more particularly the inordinate delay in submission of income tax returns much after the submission of the charge-sheet, along with the other attendant circumstances considered by the Trial Court, the High Court was not justified in allowing an additional sum of Rs.4 crores as income of Jaya Publications on account of E scheme deposit merely on the basis of the oral evidence of the 31 witnesses. [Paras 319, 320, 3261 1808-C-H; 809-A; 810-F-HI D c

13.4 Income of Al by way of interest on bank deposit: A further sum of Rs.18,49,210/- was claimed on behalf of Rt/Al as her income by way of interest on bank deposits. The Trial Court examined the evidence of the officers of the concerned banks with reference to the copies of the contemporaneous statements of accounts and had accepted the figures available . thereunder. It, however, declined to accept the profit and loss account statements adduced on behalf of the said respondent in support of the enhanced claim in absence of any other reliable evidence to that effect. Even assuming that the contention on behalf of this respondent that profit and loss accounts were indeed part of the respective income tax returns and had, in any case, been separately tendered and marked in evidence at the trial, in F G H 548 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. law the same per se was not an unassailable authentication of the erobative worth of the contents thereof, so much so to repudiate the approach of the Trial Court to be incurably erroneous. Further to adjudicate this issue. the High Court seems to have omitted (Paras 327, 328) (811-D-H) Venkatachala Gounder R. V.E. v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another [20031 4 Suppl. SCR 450 : (2003) 8 sec 752 - held inapplicable.

13.5 Income of Super Duper T. V. Pvt. Ltd. C Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

13.5.1 The Trial Court recorded that this company was one of those floated by A2, A3 and A4 during the check period and that it had introduced a deposit scheme whereunder the cable operators made cash deposit of Rs.5000/- or multiples thereof D and that in that process the company received deposit of Rs.1,06,10,100/-. The Trial Court noted, amongst others, that as per the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 enforced on and from 29.4.1994, only refundable security deposits was permissible and that though receipt books and counter-foils of that the amount of Rs.5000/- each the payee-in- slips to show E collected from large number of subscribers were credited to account, there was nothing on record to show how the investments were made for the purchase of equipments claimed to have been supplied by the company to various subscribers and that in any case, this amount could not have been available with the A3 as the stable corpus of income for purchase of immovable properties, as claimed. The Trial Court recorded the huge cash inflow and outflow to and from the account of the company. Noticeably, such deposits and withdrawals had been, vis-a-vis several accounts involving Al to A4 and the firms and companies floated by them during the check period of which they were partners/directors, the case may be. All these were noted by referring to the accounts and the individual transactions. The Trial Court having regard to the enormity of bank transactions inter se amongst the respondents and their firms/companies declined to sustain the contention of A3 that they were possessed of independent source H of income and the same was available with him and A2 for G as F STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 549 acquisition of properties in their names. [Paras 332, 3331 [813- A A-B, E-H; 814-A)

13.5.2 The High Court chiefly relied on the evidence of DW-85, who introduced himself as the Manager/Administrator of the company during 1995-96 and the fee receipt books and the counter-foils pertaining to the claimed deposit of Rs.5000/- B per member as non-refundable entrance fee. Further, it accepted the investments/documents exhibited at the trial with regard to payments received by the company from the public/public sector undertakings in connection with the business transactions entered into. It also noticed the assessment of the returns of the company by the income tax authorities and assessed the same to c be Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The High Court missed the facets of the charges levelled against the respondents and confined itself seemingly to the statements of the claimed depositors and the deposit books and the counter-foils in connection therewith. The Trial Court in contradistinction took pains to examine the trail of D the income claimed by the company and the feasible investments thereof. It also took note of the huge inflow and outflow of cash to and from the accounts of the firms/companies of which the respondents were partners/directors during the check period so much so that the income claimed by A3 under this head ceased to retain its independent identity so as to be accepted as the discernible earnings of the company for transacting its business activities as a distinctly separate institution. The summary treatment of the evidence on this issue by the High Court lacks the desired approach and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The addition awarded by it of income of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd. thus cannot be upheld. [Paras 334-336) [814-B-Hl E F

13.6 Refund of Wealth Tax to Al: Having regard to the concept of wealth tax and the comprehension of assets and net wealth attracting such levy, this G refund, though contemplated by the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, ipso facto does not certify the lawfulness of the wealth on which initially, a tax was charged and later refunded. In absence of any other evidence to satisfactorily prove the legitimate origin and status of the wealth relatable to the refund, the same cannot be accepted H 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A to be an income from the lawful source as envisaged in Section 13(l)(e) of the Act. More over there appears to be no discussion or analysis of this claim of income by the Rl/Al either by the Trial Court or by the High Court. [Para 3381 [815-C-DI

13.7 Income of Al from Mis Sasi Enterprises: B At the relevant time, Al and A2 were the partners of Sasi Enterprises and A2 was one of the partners of M/s Fax Universal as well. The exchanges of the reserves are, therefore, for all practical purposes inter se Al and A2. The claim of the defence to accept the above amount to be lawful income in the attendant c facts and circumstances, lacked persuasion. [Para 3391 [815-GI

13.8 Loan by Al from A2: D Admittedly, A2 was the sole proprietor of both, Fresh Mushroom and Vinod Video Vision at the relevant time and thus the deposits, though speciously are evidenced by bank transactions are visibly, inter se, Al and A2 and her firms. These receipts essentially have to be tested in the backdrop of the charge of conspiracy and abetment so as to determine their genuine evidential worth. Having regard to the amalgam of the persons and the entities involved in the transactions, in the absence of E other convincing evidence, the said receipts/deposits cannot be accepted to be lawful income as envisioned in Section 13(l)(e) of the Act. [Paras 341, 3431 [816-B-C, Fl Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Mohanakala [20071 6 SCR 680 : (2007) 6 SCC 21 - relied on. F

13.9 Al's Income from Jaya Publications, CANFIN Homes and Namadhu MGR: [816-F-GI

13.9.1 During the check period, Jaya Publications, apart from disbursing Rs.1,01,49,900/- in favour of Al did also repay her loan of Rs.75 lakhs. Noticeably, as has been recorded by the G Trial Court, while discussing the aspect of loan taken by Al from CANFIN Homes, prior to such loan, she had deposited Rs.l · crore in the fixed deposit with the said financial institution on 6.~.1992. This, as the Trial Court has, brought on record is vide the testimony of PW-95, Regional Manager, CANFIN Homes. This witness has disclosed further that the above loan amount H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 551 was taken on this fixed deposit. He stated that on 25.8.1995, Al A again took loan of Rs.75 lakhs on this fixed deposit, however qua a different loan account. In re the third head, admittedly Namadhu MGR is only a publication of Jaya Publications but has a separate bank account. Al's claim of having drawn Rs.94,33,000/ - as well from Namadhu MGR is seemingly also in the capacity of B a partner of Jaya Publications. [Paras 345, 3461 [817-D-GI

13.9.2 The deposits and withdrawals represented through . the different entries in the bank accounts suggest multiplication of transactions stemming from the same corpus. The maze of financial exchanges in fragments involving different combinations hint at the attempt to inflate individual and collective income of C the respondents. The banking transactions, though resorted to for proclaiming genuineness thereof, having regard to the overall factual conspectus do not appear to be real. The claim of income of Rs.2,70,82,900/- of Al by way of receipts from Jaya Publications, therefore is unconvincing. In other words, Al has D failed to satisfactorily prove this constituent of income. [Para 3471 (817-G-H; 818-AI

13.10 Additional Income Claimed by A2 to A4: E A2 to A4 claim that the prosecution had not taken into account Rs.26,50,57,478/- being their individual income as well as that of their firms/companies. The High Court had dealt exclusively with loans taken from the nationalized banks as income of the respondents. Though a reference has been made of loans availed by the respondents from various firms as named therein, the High Court had not taken into the account the same and had limited itself only to the loans availed by the respondents from the nationalized banks. In that view of the matter, the itenis of income under scrutiny, had also been left out of consideration by the High Court. Thus the grievance of the respondents that the evidence with regard to these items of income had ·not been . considered by the Trial Court, is not of decisive significancecmore G particularly in absence of any challenge made by them to the omission as well of the High Court in this regard. The High Court did not as well accept these items of income referring to them as private loans. [Paras 348, 3551 [818-B; 820-D-FI F H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c -13.11 The next batch of income as claimed by the respondents is comprised of advances received by A2 from Bharani Beach Resorts, Riverway Agro Products (P) Limited and Mis Meadow Agro Farms (P) Limited by cheques amounting to Rs.22 Iakhs, Rs.52 lakhs and Rs.32.90 lakhs respectively. According to the respondents, the transactions having been effected through cheques, Section 269SS of the Act had no application and further Section 276DD having been deleted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1989, reference thereto, the transactions being undertaken thereafter, was wholly misplaced. Whereas, the High Court did not take into account these receipts of A2, the Trial Court, apart from being of the view that cognizance of such transfers of fund by way of lawful transactions cannot be taken in the face of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act and the provisions of the Companies Act, rejected these also on the ground that the respondents had failed to adduce D acceptable evidence with regard to the resources of these two companies to advance such huge amounts. In the opinion of this court, even without reference to Sections 269SS and 276DD of the Income Tax Act, the plea that the agreement for sale of property against which Bharani Beach Resorts had advanced Rs 22 lakhs to A2, had not been proved, cannot be lightly brushed aside. Vis-a-vis the other evidence on record, as adduced by the respondents in support of the advances received, in absence of evaluation thereof by the High Court, in the face of rejection of this item of income by the Trial Court, this Court is disinclined to sustain the claim of the respondents. [Paras 360, 362, 3631 [821- F-H; 822-A-B, E-Gf E F

13.12 The next item of income cited on behalf of A2 to A4, is by way of earnings of A2 to the tune of Rs.2.2 crores as a partner of several firms. Vis-a-vis the income by way of Rs.2,90,000/-by A2 from the sale of her properties to Meadow Agro Farms (P.) Ltd., the High Court as well, according to the compilation furnished by the respondents, did not account therefor. With regard to the claim of Rs.4,35,622/- as cash balance available with A2 as on 1.7.1991, on her own showing, this amount was in deposit as on 31.3.1991. In absence of better evidence, this amount is not accepted as available at her disposal as on 1.7.1991, G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 553 the date of commencement of the check period. [Paras 364, 3681 A [822-H; 823-A, G-H; 824-AI ~;

#14. ASSETS v

14.1 According to respondent No. 1, as against the figure of Rs.24,29,40,490/- being the value of her assets during the check period, as computed by the prosecution, her assertion is B of Rs.6,52,34,410/-. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses disclose that the members of the inspection team did minutely notice all the salient characteristics of the new/additional buildings under surveillance together with their exquisite and expensive structural attachments, trappings, fineries and adornments having c formidable potential of enhancing their overall worth. Having regard to the nature and size of the survey, insistence on proof ·beyond reasonable doubt with mathematical exactitude would be both unwarranted, inexpedient and un-pragmatic. Th.e appreciation made by the Trial Court of the evidence on record and the final determination of the extent of expenditure incurred D cannot be discarded as absurd. The High Court adopted the "per square foot method" in evaluating t,!Je value of the new/ additional buildings. [Paras 414, 420, 423, 424, 4261 [835-F-G; 839-E; 840-E-G; 841-BI

14.2 Prima facie the plea of the prosecution that in assessing E the expenditure of new/additional buildings, the High Court had not only taken a reduced constructed area of 1668.39 sqs. instead of 2174.69 sqs. (for the 17 items considered by it), thereby introducing a shortfall of 506.3 sqs., it also applied the rate of Rs.28,000/- per square based on the construction cost of a sentry F shed, as the base value to work out the amount of investments made towards the new/additional buildings/constructions is borne out by the records. The adoption of Rs.28,000/- per square as the base value, which is the cost of construction of a sentry shed, per se is erroneous, having regard to the fact that a sentry shed and the new/additional constructions/buildings are incomparable G on many counts. Even if it is assumed, as has been pleaded by the defence that the base value so applied was only for appreciating the expenditure towards the skeletal framework of the constructions, the method adopted by the High Court in the final computation of the investments by making lump sum H 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A additions towards cost of marbles, granites/interior decorations, staircase, overhead tank and other furnishings, having regard to the description of the constructions/buildings does not appear to be either realistic or rational and does not merit affirmation. In any case however even assuming that the arithmetic undertaken by the High Court is correct, it having accepted the value of assets to be Rs.66,44, 73,573/-, the remainder would still value at Rs.43, 75,38,688/-. ,ln other words, in calculating the disproportionate assets, the amount of Rs.43, 75,38,688/- has to be applied even if there is a reduction in value of assets by Rs.22,69,34,885/ i.e. (Rs.29,82,71,254.32 - Rs.5,10,54,060). [841-H; 842-A-F) [Paras 428, 429, 430) B c

14.3 However, the High Court though did accept the valuation of the assets for the purpose of computation to be Rs.66,44,73,573/- as valued by the prosecution, for the purpose of ascertaining the disproportionate assets, it took into account D only the cost of new or additional construction of buildings as assessed by it at Rs. 5,10,54,060/- thus reducing the value thereof as made by the prosecution by a sum of Rs.22,69,34,885/-. The omission on the part of the High Court to exclude the other four items of assets, on which as well it had scaled down the value, in working out the extent of disproportionate assets however had not been questioned by the respondents before this Court. The reduction of the cost of new or additional construction of buildings to Rs.5,10,54,060/- as effected by the High Court is patently erroneous. Consequently disproportionate assets is also visibly wrong. [Para 441) [846-E H) the quantification of E F

#15. EXPENDITURE

15.1 As regards the erection of marriage pandals, the Trial Court assessed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. It took note, amongst others, of the testimony of G PW-181 who was the Assistant Engineer, PWD at the relevant point of time and to whom, according to the witness, the work of estimating the expenses incurred towards the pandals, both at the marriage and reception venues was entrusted. The High Court readily discarded the testimony of PW181 and the report H primarily on the gr.ound that this witness had no personal STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 555 knowledge or idea of the structures raised at the venue of the marriage and of the reception and that his version with regard thereto was on the basis of derived inputs though it mentioned that the witness, as attested by him, did consult the architect, the Art Director, the electrician etc. who accompanied him to the site and that he had been given as well a drawing of the wedding choultry and the measurements of the panda) along with the sketch of the decorative arches etc. It held the view that .the witness had prepared the report on the basis of what the witness had heard and seen from the drawings and the sketches and was not personally aware of the authenticity thereof and that he did not ask for quotations or confirm the sketches. That his report was deficient and scanty in essential particulars to inspire confidence for its acceptance was recorded. On this aspect, the High Court also referred to the evidence of PW200 who claimed to have been entrusted to oversee the works related to the pan dais by A2. This witness had confirmed that he visited both the venues and that a plan for the pandals as well as stage arrangements, as prepared by architect had been handed over to him. He narrated in details about the specifications of the structures and the payments therefor. He also admitted to have received a sum of Rs.16 Jakhs from the father of the bride in this regard. The High Court, however observed that this witness, amongst others, did neither tell the police about the expenses of leveling nor disclose the particulars about the number of air conditioner machines used. The High Court further commented that he did not supervise the work of Art Director and that this witness could not remember as to how much money was spent for the marriage. ·The High Court touched upon the evidence of other witnesses and in particular elaborated on the testimony of PW228 from whom the file containing the original vouchers, bills, invoices in connection with the marriage had been seized. It also analyzed the queries made by the Income Tax Department and the reply given thereto by Al by her Jetter wherein, she provided the breakup of the expenditure incurred by her. The testimony of DWl, the maternal uncle of the bride, more specifically to the effect that the entire expenses had been borne by the bride's family to the tune of Rs.92 lakhs by remittances through the bank account opened on 14.08.1995 was taken note A B c D E f G H 556 SUPREME cou'RT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A of. The evidence of the party workers claiming their contribution in the expenditure through collection was also recorded and eventually the High Court accepted the statement of Al furnished to the Income Tax Department disclosing the expenditure by her of Rs.28,67 ,520/- towards marriage to be her share of expenses. [Paras 444, 471) [847-G-H; 855-F-H; 856-A-F) B D

15.2 Apart from rejecting the testimony of PW181, Assistant Engineer PWD being second hand in nature, the High Court seemingly accepted in substance the version of the defence witnesses observing that at the relevant time Al was the Chief C Minister of the State and was incidentally then the General Secretary of AIADMK party as well. It recorded further that the bride was none else than the grand-daughter of famous cine actor Shivaji Ganeshan. It observed that the prosecution for no reason forthcoming, had omitted to examine the bride's father who would have been the best person to state about the actual expenses on the marriage. The High Court as well seem to have accepted that it was the customary practice for the bride's family to bear the expenses of the marriage normally and though it was of the view that such expenditure was comprised of verifiable and non verifiable components, it was difficult to ascertain the non verifiable segment while verifiable expenditure could be assessed through investigation. The High Court eventually accepted the figure of Rs.28,67,520/-, as cited by the Al to be the amount expended by her in the marriage and limited the liability of the respondent- accused, as stated above, to Rs.28,68,000/-. Thereby the High Court reduced the expenditure of Rs.6,45,04,222/- towards marriage expenditure by the Rl/Al, as mentioned by the prosecution, to Rs.28,68,000/-. [Para 4721 [856-G-H; 857- A-B] E F

15.3 In his report, PW181 mentioned, inter alia, the areas of the various pandals together with the decorative attachments G and after accounting for the cost thereof and the price of the furniture used and the amenities provided, estimated the expenditure to be Rs.5.91 crores towards the pandals and other arrangements to secure the intended facilities for the couple, guests and other participants. Although PW181 was not an eye witness to the marriage arrangements and had not personally H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 557 undertaken the works pertaining to the pandals and other A associated arrangements, yet as was observed by the Trial Court, findings in his report could be construed to be of an expert witness and further could be used as corroboration for the testimony of PW200 who indeed had supervised the same works himself and as claimed by the prosecution on the instructions/advise of A2. B The evidence of PW181, that the Architect and the Art Director had provided him with the plan and the sketch map on which the pandals and other stru.ctures at the venues had been constructed, cannot be discarded as hearsay. In this view of the matter, the approach of the Trial Court to weigh the probative worth of the testimony of PW181 in conjunction with PW200 cannot be C repudiated to be impermissible in law or outrageously fallacious. [Para 476] [859-C-GI E

15.4 PW200, Chief Engineer, PWD, Tamil Nadu did assert on oath that he was instructed by A2 to complete the pandal works as early as possible. He also referred to a plan to that effect D furnished by the Architect in presence of the contractors entrusted for the execution thereof. The witness claimed to have arranged land at the identified sites to be levelled and also provided in details of the number, size and specification of the pandals together with the purposes thereof. The witness was candid to state that the father of the bride had paid Rs.14 lakhs towards the expenditure and that therefrom, he disbursed payments. He deposed as well that Al and A2 had inspected the work by visiting the site about a week prior to the marriage. He claimed to have signed the applications for securing temporary · electric connections for the panda ls for which payments were made by cheques on behalf of Al. In this patent premise, the conclusion of the Trial Court that the evidence of PW200 was direct and of first hand in nature with regard to the arrangements at the pandals cannot be faulted with. Its finding that his testimony thus lent sufficient corroboration to that of PW181 also cannot be dismissed as preposterous. The testimony of DW-80, who was also a signatory to the report of PW181 to the effect that the same had been prepared without any inspection and that the measurements mentioned therein were not real had not been rightly preferred to the otherwise consistent versions of PW181 and PW200. The evaluation of the evidence of the other witnesses touching upon H F G 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c D E F the remaining aspects of the expenditure incurred on the marriage, as conducted by the Trial Court, also did not merit rejection in toto. The rejection of the evidence of the party workers cla_iming collection of various amounts from its cadres and utilization thereof towards the purposes and arrangements mentioned by them also in absence of any persuasive corroborative evidence does not merit any repudiation. In the face of the evidence in particular of the elaborate arrangements at the venues and the expenses incurred on other items associated with the event, the Trial Court did not err in not accepting the figure of Rs.28,68,000/-, as the expenditure incurred by Al on the basis of her reply to the queries made by the Income Tax Department. [Paras 477, 4781 [859-G, H; 860-A-GJ

15.5 Though it is not unknown, that very often the bride's family shares or bears the expenditure of marriage, dependent on the practice prevalent, it is not an invariable phenomenon and permits of exception in varying fact situations and therefore no rigid assumption either way is tenable. In any case, necessary deductions would have to be drawn on the basis of the evidence adduced. As the investigation into the expenditure on the marriage had to be conducted. more than two years after the event, it is logical that the exercise involved was expected to be informed with some assumptions, which if realistic and logical, would not as such vitiate the assessment as incurably infirm or non-est. On an overall consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the computation of the expenditure incurred by Al in the marriage as made by the High Court is unacceptable in the teeth of the materials on record to the contrary. In view of concurrent findings of the two forums on the rest of the items of expenditure, a fresh exercise with regard thereto in the present proceedings is not undertaken. [Paras 479, 480) [861-B-.DI

#16. CONSPIRACY AND ABETMENT G

16.1 The evidence on record demonstrates that companies of which A_-2 ·to A-4 were directors though were in existence from before the commencement of the check period and of which A3 and A4 were not the directors then, did neither have any significant business activity nor transaction nor any profit earning H pursuit to their credit. This the Trial Court rightly noticed was STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 559 apparent from the relevant returns and balance sheets. The A contemporaneous evidence also evinced that these companies were not possessed of sufficient resources to acquire properties to the extent amassed during the check period. Neither did these companies have fixed assets nor did they avail or give loans to evince financial soundness or stability permitting acquisition of B the assets and properties as made during the check period.· In all, in these six companies, A3 and A4 were nominated as additiomd directors/directors in the year 1994 and soon thereafter their registered office stood shifted. The original directors resigned leaving the reins of the companies wholly with A3 and A4 in particular. Soon after A3 and A4 were inducted as additional C directors/directors, bank accounts were opened. Simultaneously A2 to A4 formed several partnership firms with the principal place of business thereof also at the new address. Co-incidentally the dates of registration of most of these firms were common in batches and the duration of their existence were mentioned to be at will. Significantly, A3 and A4 resigned from the above six companies markedly on the eve of the expiry of the check period. [Para 497] [870-G, H; 871-A-D] D

16.2 The Trial Court, in details, took notice of the testimony of the witnesses examined as well as the documents on the aspect of acquisition of properties by these six companies. The witnesses' E included erstwhile directors of these companies, bank officials who stated about the opening of their accounts as well as advancement of loans, the concerned sub-registrars, who registered the sale deeds of lands purchased by these companies, officials from the office of the Company Registrar and the Real F Estate Agent, who acted as the agent/attorney of the vendors, whose lands were purchased by these companies. The materials examined by the Trial Court evidenced heavy deposits/ withdrawals of cash and transfers thereof hitherto absent before A3, A4 had taken over the companies. The amounts varied very often in the range of Rs.10 lakhs and above. Transfers of heavy G amounts to and from other accounts of A2 to A4 and their firms also surfaced. The income-tax returns/balance sheets belatedly filed also demonstrated exchanges of deposits inter se the accounts of A2 to A4 and their firms as well as these companies. [Para 498] [871-D-GJ H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c

16.3 In respect of the acquisition of the immovable properties, the evidence attested that soon after A3 and A4 had become directors of these companies, they got involved in the negotiations and survey of lands intended to be purchased. The sales were got executed through the attorneys of the owners of the lands for which deeds of power of attorney were obtained from such owners. Not only uneven bargains but also inadequate consideration/price by undervaluing the properties was noticeable in the transactions. Evidence on record disclosed that instructions were issued from the higher authorities to the Registrars/Sub- Registrars to respond to the directions issued from the office of Al for documentation and registration of the deeds involving such purchases and as a matter of fact, on various occasions, such precepts did come and were readily complied with. Several registrations were executed in the house of the vendors and at times, also in the concerned office of the Registrar/Sub-Registrar. D The sale deeds executed, which are not disputed so far as those relate to these companies, did not indicate that the purchases had been made from their assets existing prior thereto. The evidence of the witnesses did suggest as well that the registratiOn norms were flexed and that resultant irregularities in the process were ignored and cast aside to oblige the respondents. Evidence of direct involvement of A3 and A4 in the purchase of shares and properties is discernible from the evidence adduced. In some cases, A2 was also present at the time of negotiations for such [871-H; 872-A-E) purchases. [Para 499] E

16.4 The Trial Court also noticed the evidence that the F companies had been transferred to A3 and A4 at paltry sums. On a totality of the scrutiny of the evidence on record which significantly is adequately exhaustive, the Trial Court held that at the relevant time of acquisition of the properties, all the six companies were exclusively in the control and management of A2 to A4. The statement of the erstwhile directors/promoters of the companies that they did not purchase any property in their names either before or after the formation of such companies was also taken note of. The Trial Court noted as well that A2 to A4 had taken over the management of the companies even without buying the requisite shares and concluded that these H entities in fact did not have the trappings of a company. It was G STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 561 8 determined as well that none of these companies had any account A in their names before A3 and A4 had taken over the charge thereof and that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the funds of these companies had been utilised to purchase properties in their names. It recorded as well, that the funds were transferred to the accounts of these companies either from the accounts held in the names of Namadhu MGR, Mis Jaya Publications or other firms of the respondents which unassailably proved that the resources for the acquisition of the properties of these compani.es had in fact been availed from Al or the joint accounts of Al and A2. The Trial Court deduced that all the circumstances conjointly substantiated that the acquisition of these companies were never C intended to be the assets thereof and were also not treated to be their properties at any point of time. According to the Trial Court, it was only after the attachment of the properties that the respondents raised the contention that the ownership thereof did vest in the companies and thus could not be said to have been held benami for Al. The Trial Court also recorded that after D the resignation of A3 and A4, there was no appointment of directors and that seemingly for that reason, the order of attachment passed in 1997 was not assailed for nearly two years. It thus rejected the contention of the respondents that the properties acquired in the name of the companies did belong to E these entities and could not have been assimilated in the assets of Al. [Para 500) [872-F-H; 873-A-B, F-H; 874-A-BI

16.5 Qua 'the respondents' plea that the companies incorporated under the Companies Act cannot hold property benami for another person, the trial court entered a finding that F none of the documents of title registered in the names of the companies did bear the seal thereof. That in 90% of the registered deeds, the companies were not represented by their secretary or director and that the address of the companies were not recorded in such deeds, was noted. The Trial Court concluded that the registrar who registered these properties and PW 181 G who negotiated with the purchasers, distorted the rules to help Al and they went out of the way to oblige her. That in some of the deeds, the names of the purchasers were not included and that the properties were undervalued was reiterated. The admission of the District Registrar that he proceeded with the registration H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. B A solely because the properties were purchased by Al was taken cognizance of. It was thus of the view that the intention of the respondents in taking over the companies was for acquiring large number of properties in their names for diverting the funds unlawfully amassed by Al during her tenure as Chief Minister of the State. It thus concluded that the properties registered in the names of these companies and which formed the subject matter of GOMs issued by the State of Tamil Nadu were really the properties acquired and held by A2 to A4 for and on behalf of Al. Apart from the fact that these properties had been acquired during the check period, the general phenomenon decipherable is that the acquisitions had been made in the names of the newly for.med or acquired firms/companies with their directorial composition as noticed henceabove and the two existing firms, of which Al and A2 were partners. [Paras 501, 502[ [874-B-GI C E

16.6 It is a trite proposition that in the case of conspiracy, D each member thereof becomes the agent of the other and in law is bound by their actions inter se. So far as Al and A2 are concerned, one is the agent for other as partners of the two· firms and additionally A2 is the attorney of Al and is a co-conspirator, as imputed. As testified by PW198, a blanket instruction had been issued by Al that the directions as made by A2 from time to time ought to be followed and consequently the latter was to decide in which account the huge cash deposits were to be made. The numerous inter accounts transfers would only corroborate massive unaccounted cash deposits being made, the origin whereof had been A-1. For all intents and purposes, these accounts were construed to be one. The evidence of PW47,.PW 71 and PW 159 taken together attest that officials were used to locate and purchase lands at various places. In terms of the testimony of PW159, in most of the sales, it was A2 who had directed as to the names of the firms/individuals to be mentioned in the sale deeds and in whose names the sales were to be registered. The amounts had been paid from amongst various accounts of the accused/firms/companies. In many cases, the sale transactions had taken place below the guideline value as has been deposed by PW159 and PW 221. The testimony of PW 15, PW 40, PW43, PW 56, PW 76, PW 89, PW 160, PW 77 and PW237 H · is amongst others to the effect that the vendors were kept unaware G F STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 563 of the purchasers' identity and in some cases were also put under A duress to agree to the transactions. Their statements also divulge that not only was Al aware of these transactions but on several occasions, the registrations thereof were performed at her residlnce. [Paras 504, 505, 5061 [877-F-H; 878-A-DI Aron Salomon (Pauper) v. A. Salomon and Company Limited 1897 AC 22 - referred to. B

16.7 The Trial Court noted that under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try not only an offence punishable under the said statute but also one for conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abetment of any c offence thereunder. The Trial Court thus held that private individuals could be prosecuted by the Special Court under the Act on the ,ground that they had conspired with and abetted the act of criminal misconduct committed by a public servant within the meaning of Section 13(l)(e) of the 1988 Act. !Para 508) (879- H;~~~ D

17.1 The unimpeded, frequent and spontaneous inflow of funds from the account of Al to those of the other co-accused and the firms/companies involved, overwhelmingly demonstrate the collective culpable involvement· of the respondents in the transactions in the face of their overall orientations so as to render E the same to be masked banking exchanges though involving several accounts but mostly of the same bank. No other view is possible. True that in course of the investigation, some documents had been seized which were not adduced in evidence being construed to be irrelevant for substantiating the charge, F but it did not certainly tantamount to suppression thereof so as to afflict the trial with the vice of unfairness and non-transparency as alleged. Additionally, the courts did intervene as permissible in law wherever merited to ensure against any prejudice qua the parties. The fact that the documents seized but not brought on evidence by the prosecution had not been destroyed and were G available to the respondents for their inspection, at all relevant times, is, per se, an index of fair and impartial trial. The defence as a matter of record did at some point of time close its side of evidence by examining only two witnesses, whereafter following the inspection of the documents, as desired by the respondents, H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A after. Al had returned to power, examined as many as 99 witnesses. Prior thereto, 76 ·prosecution witnesses were permitted to be recalled for further cross-examination. The remonstrance that the Trial Court did not take into consideration the defence evidence is also not borne out by the records. As B would be evident from its judgment, the testimony of several witnesses examined by the respondents received in-depth appreciation by the Trial Court wherever relevant. The contention that the Trial Court had conducted the trial in a manner prejudicial to the respondents in the overall context, both factual and legal, thus cannot be sustained. [Paras 527, 5281 [890-B, C-GI c D E 17 .2 That the Trial Court was meticulous, sensitive, vigilant and judicious in appraisal, stands authenticated by the fact that in valuing the assets, as warranted, it excluded a sum of Rs.32 lakhs towards the price of sarees and further reduced the value of gold and diamond to the extent of Rs.2 crores. It also allowed reduction in the marriage expenses by more than 50% and further discounted the value of constructions by permitting a depreciation of 20%. Whereas qua income, reference of the testimony of the defence witnesses is decipherable amongst others pertaining to the scrutiny involving Namadhu MGR, Super Duper T.V., gifts offered to Al, rental income and income tax returns, the Trial Court did also assess the defence evidence while judging the case on the issues of marriage of A3, expenditure and as well as valuation of buildings. The cavil to the contrary thus cannot be entertained. (Paras 529, 5301 [890-H; 891-A, C-DI F

17.3 The Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 which was enforced w.e.f. 23.8.1944 is an yield of the exercise of powers under Section 72 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and is directed to prevent the disposal or concealment of property procured by means of the offences enlisted in the Schedule thereto. Clause 3 of the Ordinance provides that where the G State Government or as the case may be, the Central Government has reason to believe that any person has committed, whether after the commencement of the Ordinance or not, any scheduled offence and whether or not any court has taken cognizance thereof, it may authorise the making of an application to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 565 said person ordinarily resides or carries on business, for A attachment of any money or other property, believed to have been procured by means of such offence. It also permits that if such money or property cannot for any reason be attached, the prayer in the application may be extended to other property of the said person of the value as nearly as may be equivalent thereto. The B provisions did make applicable Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the proceedings for an order of attachment under the Ordinance as they did apply to the suits by the Government. [Paras 531, 5321 [891-F-G; 892-B-DI

17.4 Clause 4 contemplates ad interim attachment by the jurisdictional District Judge, in the eventualities as mentioned C therein and while doing so, he is required to issue to the person whose money or other property was being attached, a notice accompanied by copies of the order, the application and affidavits and of the evidence, if recorded, asking him to show cause on a date to be specified in the notice as to why the order of attachment D should not be made absolute. Clause 5 empowers the District Judge to make the ad interim order of attachment absolute, if either no objection is filed by the person affected or not varied after necessary enquiry on a consideration of the objection if fi~ed, and the evidence is adduced. In terms of clause 10 of the Ordinance, an order of attachment of property made shall unless E it is withdrawn, continue to be in force, in a contingency where a court has taken cognizance of the alleged scheduled offence whether, be10re or after the time when the order was applied for, until orders are passed by the District Judge in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinan.ce after the termination of the criminal' proceedings. Clause 11 provides for appeals against the order(s) of the District Judge, in the matter of attachment before the jurisdictional High Court. Whereas clause 12 makes it incumbent on the court trying a scheduled offence, when apprised . of an order of attachment of the property involved under the Ordinance, to record a finding, in case of conviction, as to the G amount of money or value of other property procured by the accused by means of the offence, Clause 13 mandates the manner of disposal of such attached property upon _termination of the criminal proceedings. Thereunder, when the final judgment or order of the criminal court is one of conviction, the District Judge H F 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A shall order that from the property of the convicted person attached under the Ordinance or out of the security given in lieu of such attachment, tlt,:re shall be forfeited to Government such amount or value as is found in the final judgment or order of the convicted the criminal court, to have been procured by B person, by means of the offence together with the costs of attachment as determined by the District Judge. Sub-clause 4 deals with a situation where the amounts ordered to be forfeited or recovered exceed the value of the property of the convicted person attached, thus permitting in that eventuality, the steps to follow. Sub-clause (6) ordains that every sum ordered to be forfeited in connection with any scheduled offence other than one specified in item 1 of the schedule, would after dec; luction of the cost of attachment as determined by the District Judge, be credited to the Government or the local authority to which the offence has caused loss or where there is more than one such D government or local authority, to be distributed amongst them in the propQrtion to the loss sustained by each. [Paras 5331 [892- E-H; 893-A-E) C F E 17 .5 In the appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka pertaining to the release of the properties recorded in the name of the six companies involved, consequent upon the acquittal of the respondents, the parties are essentially at issue on the. applicability or otherwise of Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoked by the Trial Court to order confiscation/ forfeiture of the properties otherwise attached under the Ordinance. The course ad~pted by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with. In terms of Section 5(6) of the Act, it was authorised to exercise all powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Ordinance. The offences at the trial were under Sections 13(l)(e), 13(2) of the Act, Sections 109 and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code encompassed within paragraphs 4A and .5 of the Schedule to the Ordinance. These offences were G unimpeachably within the contours of the Act and triable by a special Judge thereunder. Having regard to the frame and content of the Act and the limited modifications to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in their applicability as occasioned thereby and the authorisation of the special Judge trying the H offences thereunder to exercise all the powers and functions STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 567 invocable by a District Judge under the Ordinance, the order of A confiscation/forfeiture of the properties standing in the name of six companies, as involved, made by the Trial Court is unexceptionable. In any view of the matter, with the peremptory termination of the criminal proceedings.xesultant on this pronouncement, the direction of the Trial Court towards confiscation/forfeiture of the attached property is restored and would be construed to be an order by this court as well. [Paras 535, 536) [893-F-G; 894-D-G) B Mirza Iqbal Hussain through Askari Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 3 SCC 516; State of West Bengal v. S.K. Ghosh AIR 1963 SC 255 : [1963) SCR 111 - referred to. c

18.1 As the sole public servant has died being Al in this matter, though the appeals against her have abated, even then A2 to A4 are liable to be convicted and sentenced in the manner as has been held by the Trial Judge. The Trial Court was right in D holding that even private individuals could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. Under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, the Special Judge had the power to try offences punishing even abetment or conspiracy of the offences mentioned in the PC Act and the Trial Court correctly held in this matter that E private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(l)(e) of the 1988 Act committed by the public servant. [Paras 541, 542) (898-C-G; 896-D-E, F, G)

18.2 Furthermore, the reasoning given by the Trial Court F in respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment, after scrutinizing the evidence of this case, is correct in the face of the overwhelming evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and conspiracy by A2 to A4 in the commission of the above offences under Section 13(l)(e) of the 1988 Act. This would be evident ·from the following circumstances:- (i) Al had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of A2 in respect of Jaya Publications. The circumstance of executing the power of attorney in favour of A2 indicates that with a view to keep herself secured from legal complications, Al executed the G H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. B D c A said power of attorney knowing fully well that under the said powers, A2 would be dealing with her funds credited to her account in Jaya Publications; (ii) Constitution ·or various firms during the check period is another circumstance establishing the conspiracy between the parties. It has come in evidence that 10 firms were constituted on a single day. In addition, A2 and A3 started independent concerns and apart from buying properties, no other business activity was undertaken by them. The circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly establish that these firms are nothing but extentions of Namadhu MGR and Jaya Publications and they owed their existence to the (iii) The aforesaid firms and benevolence of Al and A2; companies were operating from the residence of Al and it cannot. be accepted that she was unaware of the same even though she feigned ignorance about the activities carried on by A2 to A4. They were residing with Al without any blood relation between them; (iv) Although A2 to A4 claims to have independent sources of income but the fact of constitution of firms and acquisition of large tracts of land out of the funds provided by Al indicate that, all the accused congregated in the house of Al neither for social living nor Al allowed them free accommodation out of humanitarian concern, rather the facts and circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly point out that A2 to A4 were accommodated in the house of Al pursul, lnt to the criminal conspiracy hatched by them to hold the assets of Al; (v) Ex.D.61 reveals that before the Income Tax Authorities, the representative of Al himself had put forth an argument that Rs.l crore was advanced by Al to Sasi Enterprises towards share F 'capital and further it was submitted that on the security of the said amount, loan was borrowed by Al, and thus she cannot claim (vi) The flow of money from non-involvement with the firms; one account to the other proves that there existed active conspiracy to launder the ill-gotten wealth of Al for purchasing G properties in the names of the firms; (vii) The conspiracy among the accused persons is also proved by, the evidence of Sub Registrar, North Beach, Sub-Registrar office-PW.159 and the evidence of PW.71 Radha Krishnan, Horticultural officer. The Trial Court correctly came to the conclusion on such reasoning. The judgment of the Trial Court is restored in toto against A2 to .E H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 569 A4. However, though in view of the inextricable nexus of Al A with A2 to A4, reference to her role as well as the evidence pertaining to her had been made, she having expired meanwhile, the appeals, so far as those relate to her stand abated. [Paras 541, 542) [896-H; 897-A-H; 898-A-E) State Through Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh [2014) 2 SCR 621 : (2014) 11 sec 724 - relied on. K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [20151 7 SCR 355 : (2015) 6 sec 86 and (2015) 6 sec 158; State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1744: [199611 Suppl. SCR 189: (1996) 4 SCC 659; Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 24 : (1988) 3 SCC 609; MG. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200 : [1963) SCR 405; State of Bihar v. Latu Prasad & Anr. (2008) Crl.L.J. 2433; Amba Lal v. Union of India [1961) 1 SCR 933; Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &Anr. [20121 14 SCR 862 : (2012) 1 SCC 10; Valliammal (D) by L.Rs. v. Subramaniam & Ors. [20041 3 Suppl. SCR 966 : (2004) 7 SCC 233; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Private Limited & Anr. [20161 1 SCR 216 : (2016) 4 SCC 469; Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra v. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah [1996) 2 Suppl. SCR 67 : (1996) 4 SCC 490; Sura} Mal v. State (1979) 4 SCC 725; Mohd. Mumtaz v. Nandini Satpathy (II) [19871 1 SCR 680 : (1987) 1 SCC 279; State of M.P. v. Mohan/al Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338; Ananda Bezbaruah v. UOI (1994) Crl.L.J. 12, para 8-14; State of A.P. v. J. Satyanarayana, JT 2000 (10) SC 430; DSP, Chennai v. K. lnbasagaran (2006) 1 SCC 420; Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr. [ 19961 2 Suppl. SCR 295 : (1996) 4 SCC 622 - reforred to. Gower - Modern Company Law - 4th Edn. (1979) (page 137); Company Law by Pennington - 5th Edition 1985 at page 53; American Professor L. Maurice Wormser in his article "Piercing the veil of corporate · B c D E F G H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A entity" - referred to. Per Amitava Roy, J. (supplementing): l. Any interpretation of the provisions of anti-corruption law has to be essentially purposive, in furtherance of its mission and not in retrogression thereof. Innovative nuances of evidential inadequacies, processual infirmities and interpretational subtleties, artfully advanced in defence, otherwise intangible and inconsequential, ought to be conscientiously cast aside with moral maturity and singular sensitivity to uphold the statutory sanctity, lest the coveted cause of justice is a causality. [Para 41 [899-E, Fl

#2. Corruption is a vice of insatiable avarice for self aggrandizement by the unscrupulous, taking unfair advantage of their power and authority and those in public office also, in breach of the institutional norms, mostly backed by minatory loyalists. Both the corrupt and the corrupter are indictable and answerable to the society and the country as a whole. This is more particularly in re the peoples' representatives in public life committed by the oath of the office to dedicate oneself to the unqualified welfare of the laity, by faithfully and conscientiously discharging their duties attached thereto in accordance with the Constitution, free from fear or favour or affection or ill-will. A self-serving conduct in defiance of such solemn undertaking in infringement of the community's confidence reposed in them is therefore a betrayal of the promise of allegiance to the Constitution and a condemnable sacrilege. Not only such a character is an anathema to the preambulor promise of justice, liberty, equality, fraternal dignity, unity and integrity of the country, which expectantly ought to animate the life and spirit of every citizen of this country, but also is an unpardonable onslaught on the constitutional religion that forms the bedrock of our democratic polity.fP-ara 51 [899-F-H; 900-A-BJ B c D E F

#3. This pernicious menace stemming from moral G debasement of the culpables, apart from destroying the sinews of the nation's structural and moral set-up, forges an unfair advantage of the dishonest over the principled, widening as well the divide between the haves and have nots. Not only this has a demoralising bearing on those who are ethical, honest, upright H and enterprising, it is visibly antithetical to the quintessential STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 571 spirit of the fundamental duty of every citizen to strive towards A excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity to raise the nation to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This virulent affliction triggers an imbalance in the society's existential stratas and stalls constructive progress in the overall well-being of the nation, besides disrupting its dynamics of fiscal B governance. It encourages defiance of the rule of law and the propensities for easy materialistic harvests, whereby the society's soul stands defiled, devalued and denigrated. Such is the militant dominance of this sprawling evil, that majority of the sensible, rational and discreet constituents of the society imbued with moral values and groomed with disciplinal ethos find themselves in C minority, besides estranged and resigned by practical compulsions and are left dejected and disillusioned. A collective, committed and courageous turnaround is thus the present day imperative to free the civil order from the suffocative throttle of this deadly affliction. Every citizen has to be a partner in this sacrosanct D mission, if we aspire for a stable, just and ideal social order as envisioned by our forefathers and fondly cherished by the numerous self-effacing crusaders of a free and independent Bharat, pledging their countless sacrifices and selfless commitments for such cause. [Paras 6, 7, 8) [900-C-G) Case Law Reference (1977) 1 sec 816 [2015) 7 SCR 355 [2000) 4 Suppl. SCR 621 (1996) 1 Suppl. SCR 189 [1988) 2 Suppl. SCR 24 (2003) 1 SCR 119 [1971) 1 SCR 119 [1963) 2 SCR 405 (2001) 7 sec 596 (2008) Crl.L.J. 2433 [1966) 3 SCR 736 [1981) 3 SCR 675 referred to referred to relied on referred to referred to relied on relied on referred to relied on referred to relied on relied on Para 26 Para 28 Para 51 Para 51 Para 51 Para 51 Para 51 Para 51 Para 51 Para 63 Para 65 Para 65 E F G H 572 1SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A (1992) 4 sec 45 (1961] 1 SCR 933 [1991) 3 SCR 189 (2012] 14 SCR 862 [1974) 1 SCR 70 B [2004) 3 Suppl. SCR 966 [1996) 2 Suppl. SCR 67 [1960) 1 SCR 461 c [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 135 [1987) 1 SCR 680 (2000) 6 sec 338 JT 2000 (10) SC 430 (2006) 1 sec 420 (2015) 14 sec 505 [1999) 2 Suppl. SCR 318 (1979) 4 sec 725 [2003) 5 Suppl. SCR 610 D E [1969] 3 SCR 130 [1978) 1 SCR 781 (2009) 13 SCR 124 [2000) 1 SCR 579 F (1984) 2 SCR 495 (2013] 4 SCR 767 [2014) 6 SCR 873 (1969) ITR 194 [1980) SCR 618 [2005) 2 SCR 708 [1980] SCR 1122 [2014] 1 SCR 135 (1972) 1 SCR 950 [2007) 3 SCR 448 G H held inapplicable Para 65 referred to relied on Para 65 Para 65 referred to relied on referred to referred to relied on relied on referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 65 Para 66 Para 66 Para 66 Para 68 Para 68 Para 69 Para 69 Para 69 Para 69 held inapplicable Para 69 referred to referred to referred to referred to relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 71 Para 71 Para 134 Para 154 Para 157 Para 163 Para 166 Para 167 Para 168 Para 169 Para 170 Para 173 Para 177 Para 178 Para 179 Para 181 Para 184 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 573 [2006) 8 Suppl. SCR 319 referred to [1996) 2 Suppl. SCR 295 referred to [2016) 1 SCR 216 referred to [2007) 6 SCR 680 relied on [1995) 2 SCR 1173 referred to (2009) 310 ITR 75 (P&H) referred to (2010) 327 ITR 424 (P&H) referred to (2014) 369 ITR 471 (P&H) referred to (2009) 318 (AT) 394(ITAT [Mum)) referred to [1986) 2 SCR 621 [1974) 1 SCR 489 [1974) 3 SCR 833 [1978) 3 SCR 393 [2014] 4 SCR 287 [1975] 3 SCR 453 [1963) Suppl. 2 SCR 724 [2001) 1 Suppl. SCR 97 [2003) 5 Suppl. SCR 672 [2008) 14 SCR 733 (1989) 2 sec 425 [1979] 3 SCR 482 (1984) 1 sec 446 [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 593 [2013) 7 SCR 1105 1984 Suppl. sec 482 [1977) 1 SCR 280 [2007) 2 SCR 630 AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) [1979) 2 SCR 265 (2014) 7 SCR 995 [1962) Suppl. SCR 104 (1976) 1 sec 542 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on referred to relied on relied on relied on· relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on referred to relied on Para 185 Para 189 Para 192 Para 193 Para 194 Para 196 Para 196 Para 196 Para 196 Para 201 Para 204 Para 205 Para 206 Para 207 Para 208 Para 212 Para 214 Para 216 Para 221 Para 222 Para 222 Para 223 Para 224 Para 225. Para 226 Para 227 Para 228 Para 229 Para 230 Para 231 Para 231 Para 235, A B c D E F G H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] s s.C.R. A (1980) 1 sec 460 [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 318 (2009] 14 SCR 424 (2012) 10 SCR 157 relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 235 Para 235 Para 235 Para 235 B (2003) 1 Suppl. SCR 710 referred to. Para 236 [1988) 1 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 284 (1976) 1 SCR 1017 referred to Para 286 [2003) 4 Suppl. SCR 450 held inapplicable Para 329 (2014) 2 SCR 175 referred to Para 354 (i963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) referred to Para 516 (1963) SCR 111 (1982) 3 s~c 516 [2014) 2 SCR 621 referred to Para 535 referred to Para 537 relied on Para 541 c D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-303 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2015 of the High Court E ofKamatakaatBangalorein CRLANos. 835, 836,837 and838 of2014 WITH Crl. A. Nos. 304-307, 308-313 and 314-319 of 2017. . 1 B.V. Acharya, Siddharth Luthra, Shekhar Naphade, B. Kumar, F Harin P. Raval, Sr. Advs., B. L. Acharya, Sandesh Chouta, Joseph Aristotle S., Mrs. PriyaAristotle, Sandesh Chouta, V. G. Pragasam, Ni tin Saluja, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Vishruti Vijay, Soumyaroop Sanyal, C. Manishankar, S. Senthil, A. Asokan, Ms. A. Shubhangi Tuli, Gaurav Agrawal, J. Karupaiah, K.C. Panneerselvam, N. Barani Kumar, K. Dhananjeyan, S. N. D. Kulasekaran, K. Krishnamoorthy, R. Rakesh G Sharma, D. Vairamoorthy, R. Gopala Krishnan, Jay Kishor Singh, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Ms. Dirya, Anand, Abhay Kumar, Harikumar G. Nair, Gautam Bharadwaj, Goutham Shivhankar, Mayank Pandey, R. Gopala Krishnan, Advs. for the appearing parties. Intervenor-in-person Dr. Roxna Swamy, Adv. H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 575 The Judgments of the Court were delivered by A PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted.

#2. These appeals project a challenge to the judgment and order dated 11.5.2015 rendered by the High Court ofKamatka in the appeals preferred by the respondents herein, thereby acquitting them of the charge under Sections 120B and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short B "IPC") read with Sections 13(l)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short" 1988 Act") as framed against them and also resultantly setting-aside the order of the Trial Court for confiscation of properties, both movable and immovable, of the concerned firms, as mentioned therein. In the meantime, after the conclusion of the c arguments, the respondent No. I expired and, thus in law, the appeals against her have abated. Nevertheless, in view of the gamut of the imputations and the frame-work of the charges as well as the nature of the evidence, oral and documentary, available on records, reference to her role and involvement, based thereon in collaboration with other respondents would have to be essentially examined. The respondents- D accused would hereinafter be referred to as respondents/accused/Al/ A2/A3/ A4, as the case may be, contingent on the context. E

#3. Charges were framed against Al - former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and the co-accused viz. A2, A3 and A4 (respondents herein), for commission ofthe alleged offences punishable under Section 13(l)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act and further under Section 120-B and Section 109 oflPC. It is the case of the prosecution that Al (since deceased) was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 24'h June, 1991 till 13'h May, 1996. Prior to this, she was a member of the Rajya Sabha from April, 1984 till 27'h January, 1989 and F further she was a member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from 27th January, 1989 till 30'h January, 1991. She also acted in the films during 1964-1972. Facts reveal that she was the daughter of late Smt. N.R. Sandhya, who also acted in films during 1960's. Smt. N.R. Sandhya diedin the year 1971 andbyvirtueofhermother's Will dated 01.11.1971, Al became the owner of the following properties viz., G (i) Land and building at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86; (ii) House at Plot No.36, Door No.8/3/1099 in Sri Nagar Officer's Colony at Hyderabad City; H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A (iii) Lands totally measuring 10.20 acres in Sy.No.52 and Sy.No.SO of Jeedimetla village and Sy. No.9311 of Pet Basheerabad Village in Metchal Taluk in Ranga Reddy Dist. of Andhra Pradesh with Grape Garden, Farm House and Servants quarters; (iv) Land in Sy.No.93/2 to the extent of 3 .15 acres in Pet Basheerabad B · village in Andhra Pradesh; c D In addition to the above properties, A 1 was also in possession of - (v) Agricultural land measuring 3.43 acres in Cheyyur Taluk now in Anna Dist. (as per Doc. No.4564/81, dt.16.12.1981 of SRO North Madras); (vi) An old Ambassador car and an old Contessa car; (vii) A new Maruti car bearing registration No.TMA-2466 worth Rs.60,435/- and (viii) Company shares. Thus, the assets which were in the possession of Al up to 1987 were found to be worth only Rs.7.5 lakhs. Besides, she also claimed to have possessed balance in her bank accounts to the extent of Rs. I lakh and certain items of jewellery.

#4. A2 - Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan is the wife of one Mr. M. E Natarajan who had joined Government service as a Publicity Assistant in the Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of Tamil Nadu, in the year 1970 and thereafter promoted in succession eventually as Deputy Director in the year 1986 in the same department. He tendered his resignation from Government service on I" November, 1988 which was accepted by the Government of Tamil Nadu with retrospective effect on 3rd April, 1991. F

#5. A2, as it appears from the facts, is the daughter one C. Vivekanandan, a Medical Compounder, and her marriage with said Natarajan was held in the early 1970's. A2 was initially an occasional G visitor to the residence of Al at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86; and started permanently living there with Al from 1988 onwards and was acknowledged and declared by A I as her friend-cum-sister. A2 continued to live with Al since then.

#6. A3 -Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran is the son of A2's elder sister Smt. H Vanithamani and T.T. Vivekanandan. He started residing at No.36, Poes STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 577 Garden, Chennai-86 in the year 1992 while pursuing his studies at New A College, Chennai. Al had acknowledged and proclaimed A3 as her "foster son" and had conducted his marriage with one Sathiyalakshmi at Chennai on 7.9.1995, in a lavish celebrations.

#7. A4, Tmt. J. Elavarasi is the wife of late V. Jayaraman, the elder brother of A2. The said V. Jayaraman was a Government servant B and he died in December, 1991 due to electrocution while attending to works in the Grape Garden of Al at Hyderabad. Following her husband's death, A4 came to live at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86, from the beginning ofl 992.

#8. The case of the prosecution is that, as on 1.7.1991, Al was c found in possession of properties and pecuniary resources in her name and in the name of A2 Smt. N. Sasikala, who was living with Al at No. 36, Poes Garden, Chennai to the extent ofRs.2,01,83,9571- including the properties acquired in the name of Mis. Jaya Publications, Mis. Sasi Enterprises and Namadhu MGR, which had been floated by Al and A2 with themselves as partners. But, after 1. 7 .1991, there was sudden spurt D in the acquisition of assets and during this period, Al and A2 floated several firms in the names of A2, A3 andA4 viz., i. ii. iii. iv. v. Vl. v11. Mis. J. Farm Houses; Mis. J.S. Housing Development; Mis. Jay Real Estate; Mis. Jaya Contractors and Builders; Mis. J.S. Leasing and Maintenance; Mis. Green Farm Houses; · Mis. Metal King; Vlll. Mis. Super Duper TV (P) Ltd., ix. x. XI. xii. xiii. Mis. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd., Mis. Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., Mis. Signora Business Enterprises Pvt., Ltd., Mis. Lex Property Development Pvt., Lid., Mis. Riverway Agro Products Pvt., Ltd., E F G H 578 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. XIV. xv. xvi. Mis. Meadow Agro Farms Pvt., Ltd., Mis. Indo Doha Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mis. A.P. Advertising Services; XVII. Mis. Vigneswara Builders; B xw1. Mis. Lakshmi Constructions; c D E xix. xx. xxi. Mis. Gopal Promoters; Mis. Sakthi Constructions; Mis. Namasivaya Housing Development; XXll. Mis. Ayyappa Property Developments; xxi11. Mis. Sea Enclave; xxiv. M/s. Navasakthi Contractors and Builders; xxv. Mis. Oceanic Constructions; xxvi. Mis. Green Garden Apartments; xxvii. Mis. Marble Marvels; xxviii. Vinod Video Vision; xxix. Fax Universal; xxx. Fresh Mushrooms; xxxi. Mis. Super Duper TV., and xxxii. M/s. Kodanadu Tea Estate; F

#9. The further case of the prosecution is that during the check period i.e. from 1. 7 .1991 to 30.4.1996, there were no business activities at all in respect of many of the above firms, and in respect of others, the activities were more in the nature of acquiring assets like lands, machinery, building etc., which were not production oriented. No income tax returns were filed by these firms. No assessment for commercial tax has also b~en done with respect to the business of these firms. Al also did not file her Income-tax returns for the assessment years 1987- 88 to 1992-93 till November, 1992 and when this issue was sought to be raised in Parliament, A 1 filed the income-tax returns for the above period in November, 1992. Subsequent to 1.7.1991, assets in the form of H movable and immovable properties and pecuniary resources like bank G STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 579 deposits etc., were found acquired not only in the name of Al, but also in A the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the firms floated in their names. Scrutiny of various bank accounts maintained in the names of Al toA4 and in the names of the above firms disclosed that huge credits in cash had been frequently made into various accounts which were not commensurate with the income of the individuals and of the firms concerned. There were frequent transfers of amounts between one account to the others to facilitate illegal acquisition of assets. The huge quantum of such assets, when viewed in the context that Al was holding the office of the Chief Minister and that A2, A3 and A4 were living under the same roof with Al and not having sufficient means to acquire the assets in their names, established that the assets were actually acquired by A 1. B c

#10. It is further alleged that, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy between Al, a public servant and her associates viz., A2, A3 andA4, to acquire and possess properties and pecuniary resources by Al in her name and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and in the names of various firms floated by them, they amassed properties and pecuniary resources D to the tune ofRs.66,64,73,573/- (later corrected as Rs.66,65.,20,395/-), which was grossly disproportionate to the known sources of income of Al andA2 toA4 during tlie check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. According to the prosecution, the income from the known sources of Al during this period, such as rental income, interest derived from various bank deposits and other deposits held by her in her name and in the names of A2, A3 andA4, agricultural income, loans and the salary received by her as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, worked out to a total of Rs.9,34,26,054/-, whereas during this period the expenditure incurred by Al including repayment of principal amounts and interest on loan, and other outgoings were assessed at Rs.11,56,56,833/-. Thus, as on 30.4.1996, Al being a public servant was found to have acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties in her name and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the firms floated by them, which were overwhelmingly disproportionate to her known sources of income to the extent ofRs.66,65,20,395/- (Rupees Sixty Six Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Three hundred and Ninety Five only) which is an G offence of criminal misconduct within the definition of Sec.13(l)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of 1988 Act and A2, A3, and A4 conspired with A 1 and abetted the commission of the above offence. F E

#11. On 14.6.1996, Dr. Subramanian Swamy (PW-232), the then President of J anata Dal lodged a complaint against A I before the Principal H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A Sessions/Special Judge, Madras, under Section 200 ofCr.P.C., alleging that Al, after assuming the public office as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, had acquired properties and earned income disproportionate to her known sources of income. The said complaint was registered as Crl.M.P. No.3238of1996 and by order dated 21.06.1996, the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge directed investigation under Section 17 of 1988 Act and Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and further directed to collect necessary materials and submit a-report before the Court within a period of two months. Pursuant to the said order, PW-240 - Smt. Letika Saran, a senior JPS Officer, took up the investigation, collected records and documents from various sources. B

#12. During the investigation, the said order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge was challenged before the High Court of Madras. The investigation was stayed for a brief period and thereafter the High Court was pleased to direct the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras (hereinafter also referred to as "DVAC") to take D appropriate steps to investigate into the allegations made in the complaint and ultimately, an FIR was filed against Al on 18.9.1996 as per Ext.P- 2266. c

#13. During investigation, after conducting search of the residential premises of Al and various other locations, the Investigating Officer found several incriminating materials and voluminous documents were seized and statements of a large number of witnesses were recorded. The incriminating evidence collected during such investigation disclosed the complicity of A2 to A4 in the alleged offence. Hence, an application was filed before the Special Judge on 22.01.1997 for addition ofA2,A3 and A4 as co-accused and for incorporation of additional offences under Section 120-B oflPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(l)(e) of 1988 Act and Section l 09 of IPC. On completion of such investigation, PW-259 (Shri Nallamma Naidu) laid the charges against all the accused on 4.6.1997 which was duly registered as Sp!. C.C. No.7/97 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court, 1), Chennai.

#14. The ball was set into motion and following charges were framed by the Special Judge, Chennai: Firstly:- That you Al to A4 during the period between 1. 7.1991 and 30.4.1996 in Chennai and other places in Tamil Nadu, you Al being a public servant, along with you A2 to A4, were parties to a criminal conspiracy with the object of E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 581 acquiring and possession pecuniary resources of income to A the extent of Rs.66,65,20,3951- in the names of you Al and in the names of you A2 to A4 and the thirty two (32) business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to A4, for which you (Al) could not satisfactorily account and you (A2 to A4) abetted A I by holding a substantial portion of the pecuniary B resources and property in your names (A2 to A4) on behalf of you and thereby you Al to A4 committed an offence punishable ulSec.s 120-B l.P.C. rlw 13(2) rlw l 3(l)(e) of Prevention of ·Corruptipn Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly:- That you Al in pursuance of the said criminal C conspiracy, during the said period and the said places, being a public servant to wit the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, acquired and possessed in your name and in the names of A2 to A4 and in the names of the business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to A4, pecuniary D resources and property disproportionate to your known sources of income to the extent of Rs.66,65,20,3951- for which you could not satisfactorily account, and thereby you Al committed an offence punishable ulSec. 13(2) rlw l 3(l)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court. E Thirdly:- That you A2 to A4 in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy during the said period and the said places abetted Al who was a public servant, by intentionally aiding her in the possession of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to her known sources of income and for which she could not satisfactorily account, by holding a substantial portion of the said pecuniary resources and property in your names and in the names of the business enterprises floated in your names, and thereby you A2 to A4 committed an offence punishable ulSec. 109 J.P. C. rlw 13(2) rlw 13(l)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court. F G

#15. The charges were denied by the accused persons. During the pendency of the trial, the D .V. & A.C. was permitted further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and was granted letters rogatory by the H 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A Designated Court for collecting evidence and materials relating to the alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets/wealth by Al in conspiracy with A2 outside the country. On the basis of the evidence collected during further investigation, a separate FIR in Crime No.2/ AC/2000 was filed by the prosecution on 2.9.2000 against Al and A2 B which culminated into a charge-sheet dated 23.3.2001 registered as . Spl.C.C. No.2/2001.

#16. Subsequent thereto evidence was recorded from time to time. Thereafter, steps were ·taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. So far as Al was concerned, she was permitted to answer a questionnaire which was delivered to her with a direction to answer it on 25.2.2003, which C was adhered to by Al. A2 to A4 were also questioned as per Section 313 Cr.P.C. which was duly concluded on 26.2.2003. Thereafter, defence witnesses were examined. Thereafter, by its judgment dated 18.11.2003 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.77-78/2003, the Supreme Court transferred the said matter to the State ofKamataka and in terms of the said judgment, the Government of Karnataka by its order dated 27 .12.2003 duly accorded sanction for establishment of the Special Curt at Bangalore and by Notification dated 19 .02.2005, duly appointed Shri B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Kamataka as Public Prosecutor to conduct the said matter. D E F G H

#17. Thereafter, the said matter bearing Spl.C.C. No.7/1997was renumbered as Spl.C.C. No.208/2004 and Spl.C.C. No.2/2001 was renumbered as Spl.C.C. No.209/2004 on the file of the Special Judge h Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore. Subsequent (i.e. 361 thereto certain steps were taken on behalf of the accused and the matter travelled up to this Court/Supreme Court whereafter the trial was resumed before the Special Judge. The accused were called upon to examine their witnesses and subsequently 99 witnesses were produced before the Court and concluded their evidence. Narration of all eventful factual interventions has been avoided being not decisively essential for the adjudication.

#18. It appears that the Trial Court after hearing the parties culled out the following points for determination: '. (a) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Al, being a public servant acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A2 to A 4 and in the names of business enterprises floated in their names, pecuniary STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 583 resources and assets of the value of Rs. 66, 65,20,3951- A disproportionate to her known source of income during the check period from 01.07.1991 and 30.04.1996, which she· could not satisfactorily account? (b) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that Al to 4 were parties to a criminal B conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing the extent of pecuniary resources and assets Rs.66,65,20,3951- in the names of Al and in the names of A2 to 4 and the 32 business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to 4 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/ Sec. 120-B of Indian Penal Code Rlw. Sec.13 (2) Rlw. Sec. C I 3 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (c) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that A2 to A4 abetted the commission of the above offence by intentionally aiding A 1 in the acquisition and possession of-pecuniary resources and D properties disproportionate to her known source ofincome by holding substantial portion thereof in their names and in the names of 32 " business enterprises floated in the names of A2 to A4, rendering them liable for conviction for the offence punishable u/Sec. 109 Indian Penal Code Rlw. Sec. 13(2) RI w. Sec. l 3(l)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? E (d) What order ?

#19. The Trial Courf appraised the evidence adduced in respect of F the points formulated by it and duly dealt with the charges framed against the accused. The Trial Court elaborately dealt with the matter after considering the evidence, facts as well as the judgments cited before it, the contentions raised and after dealing with all aspects of the matter, . inter alia held that: " ...... There is no argument from any quarters that the choice of the check period has caused any prejudice or disadvantage to the accused in any manner. Hence, in my view, the period of 5 years selected by the prosecution is reasonably sufficient to give a fair and comprehensive picture of the known source of income and pecuniary resources and property in the possession of the H G 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A accused so to arrive at a fair decision on the issues involved in this proceedings."

#20. From the facts it appears, the prosecution has listed the details of assets held by the accused at the beginning of the check period .i.e. 1.7 .1991 in Annexure-1 (Ext.P-2327). The saidAnnexure is reproduced B hereunder: Value of the property (Rs.) 1,32,009.00 50,000.00 1,65,058.50 ANNEXURE- I (ASSETS AS ON 1.7.1991) Description of the property Standing name of Kala Land and building at No. 36, M's Natya Poes Garden Chennai-86 (Sy.No. Nikethan, rep. 1567 of Tenampet)purchased Smt N.R Sandhya J. from R Sarala Selvi Jayalalitha " " Door No. 8/3/1099, Ward No. 8,Block No. 3 in plot No. 3 6 to the extent of 651.18 Sq. Mtrs. building in Sri Nagar Officers Colony, purchased from Koka Sambasiva Rao, S/o Hariprakash Rao at Door No. 813/1099 in Sri Nagar Officers Colony, Hyderabad city Hyderabad Tuo Farm houses, Servant quarters and o1her buildings within the Grape ~rd en compound in Jeec.illretla village and Pet Basheerbad in Qut Bullapur (Manda!) of Rangi Reddy Dist., in Sy. No. 50 and 52/E of Jeedimetla village and Sy. No. 93E and 93 U of Pet Basheerbad village er otal extent 11.35 acres) SI. No I.

#2. c D E

#3. F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 585

#9. J Land in Sy. No. 9313 extent acres( 1.36 3.15 Hectares) at Pet Basheerbad village in Medchal Tq. in A-P., ,, 13,254~0 A Agricultural land measuring 3.43 Selvi J. acres in Cheyyhur village in Sy. No. 36612,5,6 purchased from M.N. V enkatacha la Mudaliar, Slo Natesa Mudaliar, No. 104618, Thiruvotriyur Main Road, Kaladipettai, Chennai. Jayalalitha Land and flat No. 7, R.R. Flats, Smt. N. 314 , Antu Street, Santhome, Sasikala Chennai4 of Smt N. Sasikala C - Rs. 2,75,0001- S - Rs. 35,7501- F - Rs. 2,7801- 17,060.00 B 3 ,13,530.00 c 5 ,70,039.00 I 98,904.00 at Door No. Building Pattammal Street, Chennai Plot No. 83, R.S. No. 4087, Extent 18907 Sq. ft. purchased from V.H. Subramanian, Slo H. Venkatasubban, 15, Venkatraman Sasikala) Street, Chennai-28 19, Mis Jaya in Publications (Selvi J. Jayalaitha and Smt. N. Srinivasa Avenue, Shop No. 14, Ground Floor at Mis Sasi 602, Anna Salai, Chennai-6 Enterprises purchased from Mohd. Hanif, No. 7, Gulam Abbas Ali Khan, I" Street, Thousland Lights, Chennai-6 in the name of Mis Sasi Enterprises C - Rs. 85 ,0001- S - Rs. 13,0451-F - Rs. 8591- ,, 2 ,I 0,919 .00 Undivided share of land only at Door No. 14, Khadar Navaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam in R.S. No. 58151 to the extent of 68112000 undivided share in 11 grounds and 736 Sq. ft. of land purchased from Mis Holiday Sports Pvt. Ltd., office at 14, Khadar Navaz Khan Road, Chennai-6 D E F G H 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A

#10. Land and building at Door No. 213/B, St. Mary's Road in Sy. NO. 72, New No. 212, Extent 1206 Sq.ft. Ft purchased from K. Selvaraj, S/o Munusamy 44, Vanniyampathy Naidu, Street, Mandaveli, Chennai-28 Selvi J. Jayalalitha 3,60,509.00 ' " 1,05,409.00

#11. Shop No. 18 of 189 Sq. ft. in ground floor at Door No. 602, Mount Road together with 54/42656th of undivided share of land in 17 grounds and 1856 Sq. ft. in R. S. No. 3/10 and 3/11 of Block No. 71 of Mylapore from Mustafa M. purchased Lohani, S/o Moiz K. Lohani and 2 others of 134, Angappan Naikan Floor, Chennai-1 Sreet, 3rd

#12. Land and building at Tanjore in Sy. No. 1091 to the extent of 2400 Sq. Ft. purchased from V.N. Somasundaram, S/o V. Namachiayam, 14, Thilagar Street, Ayyappa Nagar, Trichy. Mis Sasi Ente1prises (partners Selvi J. Ja yalaalitha and Smt N. Sasikala) 1,57,125.00

#13. Vacant site at H.D.Road, in 3'" M/s Sasi 1,15,315.00 Dvn, 6th Ward, Haar Nombu Ente1prises Chavadi in Tanjore to the extent of 5100 Sq. ft. in T.S. No.1091 purchased from K Loganathan, · S/o K.N. Kuppusamy of 1279, Old Nellu Mettu St. East Gate, Tanjore.

#14. Vacant site at' Ward No. 6 in Mahar Nombu Chavadi to the extent of 8970 Sq. ft. in T.S. No. 1091 of Tanjore purchased from Muthu 'Lakshmi, W/o V.N. of No. 11 Somasundaram Street, Ayyappan Thilagara Nagar, Trichy. 2,02,778.00 B c D E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKl CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] , 587

#17. at Smt.N. in Sasikala building Land Abishekapuram, Ponnagar Trichy in plot No. 102, 3rd Cross Road, New Ward No.Kin Block No. 30, T.S. No. 107 (totally measuring 3525 Sq. ft. purchased from Mirasi of 22-A Willion ·Road, Cantonment, Trichy. in Sy. No. 402-2 of Enterprises Dry land to the· extent of 3.23 Mis Sasi village, Sundarakottai Mannargudi Tq. Tanjore Dist., purchased from Ummool Pajriya Anwartheen Ammal, W/o Mohd. Naina Raouthar, Anwardeen S/o Raouthar, Raouthar, No. 4, Hussain Road, Koothannallore, N eedamangalm, Tanjore. Land and building at Thiru Vi. Mis Jaya KAindustrial Estate, Guindy in Publications Sy. No. 55 & 56, Block No. VI, Extent 5658 Sq. ft. Shed No. C- 8, Adyar purchased from K. Viswanathan, S.K.R. S/o 184, Chettiar, Karuppan Vembuliamman Koil Street, Colony, Carbide Union Kottivakkam, Chennai-41 - Sole prop. of Mis Heatex Equipments 5 ,85,420.00 A 75,210.00 B c 5 ,28,039.00 D E

#18. Maruthi. car bearing Reg. No. Selvi J. 60,435.00 TMA 2466 (new) Jayalalitha

#23. Contessa car bearing Reg. No. TN-09/0033 Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. No. TS! 9090 Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ 7299 Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. No.TSR333 Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ 7200 " " " " " 2 ,56,238.00 F . l ,76, 172.67 l ,04,000.00 2,99,845.00 1 ,04,000.00 G H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A

#25. B

#26. c Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank at Kellys branch with SB Acc. No. 38746 opened on 30.12.1988 in the name of Smt. N. Sasikala Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Central Bank oflndia, Secunderabad with SB Acc. No. 20614 opened on 19.5 .1989 in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Smt N. Sasikala I 3,60 i.98 Selvi J. Jayalalitha 9,18,210.29 Namadhu Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank ofMylapore branch MGR with CA No. 1952 opened on 23.10.1989 in the name of Namadhu MGR in which Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala are partners 5,51, 826.94 D

#27. Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank of My la pore branch with SB Acc. No. 232 I 8 opened on 23.5.1990 in ihe name ofSmt. N. Sasikala Smt.N. Sasikala 1,40, 198.25

#31. Mis Jaya Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank ofMylapore branch Publications rep. by Se !vi with CA No. 2047 opened on J. Jayalalitha 26.9.1990 on transfer from Kellys branch in the name of andSmt. N. Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala Sasikala 7,83,860.97 F.D. No. 451/1990, dt. 19.6.1990 with Canara Bank of Mylapore " 64,520.00 Cash balance as on I. 7.1991 in the Bank of Madurai, Anna Nagar branch with SB Acc. No. 5158openedon28.2.1990in the nameofSelvi J. Jayalalith Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank ofMylapore branch with CA No. 2018 opened on 12.l 0.1990 in the name of Se I vi J. Jayalalitha Selvi J. Jayalalitha 2,57 ,886.25 " 2,40,835.02 E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 589

#32. Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Canara Bank ofMylapore branch with SB Acc. No. 23832 opened on 16.4.1991 in too name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha . " 5,20,396.45

#33. Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Mis Sasi 2,29,578.49 Canara Bank ofMylapore branch Enterprises with CA No. 2061 opened on 21.3.1991 in the name of Sasi Enterprises in which both Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Smt. N. Sasikala are the partners . FD in Kothari Oriental Finance in 1he name ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha Selvi J. Jayalalitha 1,00,000.00 " " 3,00,000.00 5,00,000.00 20,00,000.00 7,00,000.00 " " FD with Sriram Finan:e in the name of " " " Investment in the form of Equity shares in Madras Oxygen and Acetylere Co., Ltd., Coimbatore by J. Jayalalitha 'smother during 1969 and 1971and inherited by Se! viJ. Ja yalali tha Investment in the form of shares in Kuna! Engireering Co., Ltd., Ambattur, Madras-58 by Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 22.5.1978 for I 000 shares which have secured 500 bonus shares on 18.2.1983 " " " " " " " "

#35. .

#42. A B c D E F G H 590 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

#43. Value of 2140 old sarees and other dresses found at No. 36, Poes Garden at the time of Search 86 items of jewels of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s VBC Trust on 31.3 .1991

#46. 62 items of jewels claimed to be ofSmt N. Sasikala as evaluated by Mis VBC Trust on 31.3.1991 Smt N. Sasikala Silver wear weighing 70 0 kgs (as Selvi J. per the IT returns filed by Selvi J. Jayalalitha) (value worked out at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per kg.) Jayalalitha

#47. Amount deposited in MIDS No.716767,-dt. 30.4.1990 of Bank of Madurai, Anna Nagar for 2 years by Selvi J. Jayalalitha which was in force as on 1.7.199

#49. Cash balance as· on 1.7.1991 in CDS - ITP Acc. No. 32 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha in Central Bank of India, T. Nagarbranch, Chennai - 17. FD of Rs. 5 lakh deposited in Sri ram In vestments Ltd., deposited on 12.11.1990 by'Selvi J. Jayalalitha from her SB Acc. No. 5158 o BOM, Anna Nagar branch which after subsequent renewals is to mature on 29.1.1998.

#50. Advance amount paid for purchase of 72/12000 undivided share of land in 11 grounds and 1736 Sq. ft. in R.S. No. 58/5 at 14, Gems Court, Kadhar Navaz Khan Road, Nungumbakkam, paid by Ch. No. 513735, dt 23.4.1990 of CB, Madras which was registered as document No. 641/1993 of SRO, Thousand Lights branch, dt. 28.7.1993) 4,21,870.00 17,50,031.00 9,38,460.00 28,00,000.00 I 0,00,000.00 21,389.00 5,00,000.00 " " " " " ·-·~-· . Mis Sasi Enterprises 50,000.00 . STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

#51. MIDR No. 6619 with Central Bank of India, Secunderabad deposited on 2.5.1990

#52. Cash balance as on !. 7.1991 in SB Acc. No. 38671 of Canara Bank, Kellys in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Selvi J. Jayala\itha 3;00,000.00 ·" l .80,o3 l .22 Grand Total 2,01,83,956.52

#21. The Trial Court also gave the details of the income, derived by the accused during the check period i.e. l. 7 .1991 to J0.4.1996, in Annexure-III, (being Ext.P-2329) which is set out hereunder: ANNEX URE-Ill (Ex.P.2329) (Income during the check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996) SL No I.

#3. Details of income Amount(Rs.) Exhibits Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of Mis Sasi Enterprises of which the outstan.ling principal was Rs. 13,55,023/- Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram irt the name of Mis J. Fann Houses of which the principal ofRs. 28 lakh was out&a nding besides Rs. 1,23,041/- as interest; Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of Mis J.S. Housing Development of which the principa I of Rs. 7 lakh was outstanding besides Rs. 37,184/- as interest; ·25,00,000 P.1258 ~P.1260 28,00,000 P.1210 -1212 7,00,000 P.ll71 P.1173 ,, 591 A B c D E F G H 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A

#9. B c D E F G H 5,00,000 17,86,000 75,00,000 Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of Mis Jay Real Estate of which the entire principal of Rs. 5 Jakh was outstanding besides Rs. 28,407/- as interest; Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of Mis Anjaneya Printers Pvt, Ltd., of which the principal of Rs. 75 lakh was outstarrling besides Rs..8,81,477/- as interest; Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name of Maha Subhalakshmi Katy.ma Mandap am of which the principal of Rs. 17,86,000/- was outstanding besides Rs. 1,95,802/- as interest; Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the nameofM/sLexProperty Development (P) Ltd., of which the outstanding principa I was Rs. 83 lakh; Loan obtained from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the name ofKodanadu Tea Estate of which the principal ofRs. 375 lakh was outstanding; Loan taken from Can FinHom:s 75,00,000.00 on FD No. 352/ 1994-95 on 25.8.1995 by Selvi J. Jayalalitha. 3,75,00,000 83,00,000 P.1161 P.1163 P.1230 1233 1004 P.1355 1357 P.1328 - P.1330 P.1008 P.997 P.1003 P.548, P.550 - P.555, P.2287 P.1377

#10. Incom: by way interest to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide her A/c in SB No. 23832 ofCB/Mylapore); 4,52,871.00 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

#17. .

#20. 60,437.82 2,56,685 .00 Income by way of interest to Selvi J. Jayalalitha ( vide her Fixed Deposits in FD No. I 000192 - Rs. 79,890/-; 1398'92 - Rs. 73;233/-; 237/93- Rs. 54,247/-; 632/93 -Rs. 49,315/- of Canara Bank, Mylapore for Rs. 27 lakh credited in SB 23832 and CA 2018 of Canara bank, My la pore of Se I vi J. J ayalalitha; Interest from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd., to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 47740 (53389) & 63848); Interest paid from Kothari Orient 60,434.78 Finance Ltd., to Selvi J. J ayalalitha (vi de FDR Nos.48172, 53390 &64308); from Kothari Orient Finance Ltd., J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR Nos. 53391 & 64280); Interest from Can Finance to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 186/1991-92); Interest from Can Finance to Selvi J. Jayalalitha ( vide FDR No. 352/1994-95); Interest from Sriram Investments 6,53,818.00 to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5006835) for Rs. 30 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investments 3,09,088 .60 to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5007694) for Rs. 15 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investments 2,09,928.50 to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide FDR No. 5015954 for Rs. 15 lakh Interest from Sriram Investments 1,39,947 .80 to Selvi J. Ja yalalitha (vi de FDR No. 5015955 for Rs. 10 lakh; 8,76,896.00 4, 71,808 .00 50,434.78 P.1377 P.1382 P.1377 P.1377 P.1382 P.1382 . P.1382 P.1382 . 593 A B c D E F G H 594 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

#32. Interest from Sriram Investrnenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 5015956 for Rs. 5 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investrnenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 71533 for Rs. 5 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investmenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 21330 for Rs. 5 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investrnenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 5025367 for Rs. 20 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investmenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 45897 for Rs. 20 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investmenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 47437 for Rs. 3 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investmenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 73211 for Rs. 20 lakh; Interest from Sriram Investmenls to Selvi J. Jayalalilha (videFDR No. 31251 dt. 4.5.1990 for Rs. 7 lakh during the check period; Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha (vide SB 5158 of Bank ofMadurai, Anna Nagar, Chennai; Interest paid to Smt N. Sasikala (vide her SB 22792 of CBI, Secunderabad); Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha ( vide SB 20614 of CBI, Secunderabad); Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha from Medium Term Deposit in CBI, Secunderabad (vi de NPD 669 - Rs. 27 ,272.08; 68/33- Rs. 77' 162.40; 60'9 - Rs. 14,874/-; 70/9-Rs. 42,143/-) 84,522.80 P.1382 1,27 ,871. 50 p .1382 87,960.83 P.1382 1,34,977.00 P.1382 . 4, 76,023.27 P.1382 2,06,237.00 P.1382 5,02,207.00 P.1382 87,024.00 P.1382 47,265.81.00 P.1960 27,304.00 3,17,781.00 P.936 P.937 P.936 P.937 1,61,451.48.00 P.936 P.937 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 595

#33. Agrl. Income from Grape 5, 78,340.00 P.938 P.936 P.975 P.1961 P.1960 P.1510 P.1510 P.1519

#38. 3,42,520.40 14,446.00

82.600.00 Garden, Hyderabad in fu vour of Selvi J. Jayalalitha; Income by way of clearings in the account in SB 20164 of CBI, Secunderabad in favourofSelvi J. Jayalalitha towards rental income for 36, Sri N agar Colony, Hyderabad; Interest paid to Selvi J. Jayalalitha through SB 38671 of Canara Bank, Kellys Branch opened on 19.12.1988; Income from the monthly income deposit scheme ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha from the deposit amount of Rs. 10 lakhl (vi de MIDS No. 716767 dt. 30.4.1990) of Bank of Madurai which lasted till 8.6.1992 though the FD matured on 30.4.1992 for which the interesi was received through SB 38671 of Canara Bank, Kelly Branch ofSelvi J. Jaya la litha Interest from SB Acc. No. 2 3218 1,89,761.00 of Canara Bank, Mylapore to N. Sasikala; Interest of Rs. 29,490/- from FDR No. 718/1992 of Canara Bank, Mylapore to Smt. N. Sasikala for Rs. 18 lakh; Rs. 53,260/- from FDR No. 954/1992; Rs. 48,822/- from FDRNo.1397/1992;Rs. 48,822/- from FDR No. 236/1993; Rs. 44,384/- from FDR No. 633/1993; & Rs. 32,340/- from FDR No. 868/1993; 2,57,118.00 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. I·

#44. 10,03,191.00 3,901.00 Interest from Can Finance in FDR No. 189/1991-92 for Rs. 25 lakh 1D N. Sasikala; Incorre by way of clearing in SB 2,23,000.00 22792 of CBI, Secmderabad of Srrt. N. Sasikala (rental irrome for No.16, Radhika Colony, Secunderabad); Interest paid to Smt N. Sasikala through SB 38746 of Canara Bank, Kellys Branch; Interest from SB 24621 of Canara Bank, Mylapore to VN. Sulhakaran; Interest from FDR No. 1401/1992 of Canara Bank, Mylaporefor Rs. 5 Jakh to V.N. Sulhakaran Interest from FDR238/1993 of Canara Bank, Mylapore for Rs. 5 lakh by renewal of FDR 140111992; 24,323.00 12,329.00 13,562.00 P.1510 P.937 P.977 p .1572 -· P.1572 P.1576

#45. Hire charges from ACT India Ltd., for 1he vehicle No. TSR 333 Swaraj Mazda wn owred by V N. Sudhakaran from 3.2.1993;

#46. Brokerage charges receiwd by V.N. Sudhakaran for tb: deposits made by Selvi J. Jayalalitha in Can Fin. Horres Ltd., (vide FDR Nos. 186/1991- 92 & 352/1994-95; Loan obtained by Smt J. Elavarasi from Royapetta Benefit Fund (RBF Nidlu) Ltd, (vide HML/787, dt. 7.10.1995);

#47. 9,18,910.00 P.659 3,00,000.00 P.548 35,00,000.00 596 A B c D E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS.· [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 597

#48. Hire charges received from ACT 6,26,410.00 P.658 90,807.59 India Ltd., for the vehicle No. TN-Ol/H-9999 ofSwaraj Mazda van owned by Smt. J. Elavarasi from 3.2.1993 to 30.4.1996; Interest paid to Smt J. Elavarasi, 9,763.00 guardian of Vivek by SB Ale.No. 25389 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram; Income by way of monthly interest from 7/1991to4.6.1992 in respect of the FD of Rs. 7 lakh in Sriram Investmen1S Ltd., ( vide FD receipt No. 31251, dt.4.5.1990) deposited through Ch. No. 907521, dt. 4.5.1990of Selvi J. Jayalalitha from her BOM Acc. of Anna Nagar; Salary of Selvi J. Jayalalitha as CM of Tamil Nadu at Re. 1/- per month drawn for 27 months; Lease income of lndo Doha from 30,40,000.00 SPIC in respect ofSIPCOT Industries in Cuddalore (Rs. 1,22,40,000/-) from 14.12.1994 to 8.4.1996 after deducting payment to SPICOT (Rs. 72 . lakh) and payment of Rs. 20 lakh to James Frederick for purchases

27.00 P.1613 P.126-132 ~- P.694-697 D P.563, · P.564 . 37,67,358.00 P.655-657 of shares of IN DAG Products Ltd., Rental income from S 7, Ganapathy Colony, Thim-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, "Guindy, building of Jaya Publications given on lease from January, 1993 to April, 1996 from SPIC.,

#54. Rental income from No. 19, 2,33,769.00 P.655-657 Pattammal Street, Mandaveli, building ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha given on lease from January, 1994 to April, 1996;

#52. .

#53. """""' A B c E F G H 598 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

#55. Rental income from 21, 3,82,500.00 X-2 B

#56. Padmanabha Street, T. Nagar, Chennai, building of Anjaneya Printers Pvt., Ltd., given on lease Fonn July, 1995 to April, 1996; Interest derived in SB Ne No. 4110 oflndianBank, Abhirarrapuram in the name of Master Vivek; c D E

#57. Rental income and Rertal advance derived fur tre muse at No. I, Murphy Street, Akkarai of J.S. Housing for the period from07/1995 to 04/1996; 58. Rental income (including rental advance of Rs. 20,000/-) from Flat No. 7, Antu Street, Santhoire, Mylapore (RR Flats) of Smt. N. Sasikala;

#59. Rental income & advance from SIDp No. 20 ofNo. 14, KhadarNavazkhan Rd. (Gem Court), Nungani>akkam, Chennai for the period from 111992 to 411996 (Rs. 4000x 4) +Rs. 4600x 35) +Rs. 5300 x 13) +Rs. 25000); 10,213.00 P.1138 91,000.00 1,94,000.00 2,70,900.00 F

#60. Rental income& advance from 4,50,000.00 No. 1, W allance Garden, I" Street, 4th Floor from 12/1994 to 0411996 (Rs. 25000 x 17) +(Rs. 75000);

#61. Rental income & advance from SIDp No. 9, Khadar Navazkhan Rd. (Gem Coll't), Chennai for the period from 1/1992 to4/1996 (Rs. 4000 x49) +Rs. 4500x3) + (Rs. 45000 as advance) G H 2,01,000.00 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

#62. Rental income & advance from Soop No. 8, Khadar Navazkhan Rd. (Gem Coirt), Chennai for the period from July, 1993 to 30.4.1996 (Rs. 3600 x 34) +(Rs. 21600 as advance) 63. Amounts receiwd towards Family Benefit Fund & Gratuity by Smt. J. Elavarasi during August & October, 1993 & Jun::, 1994 on the death of her husband V. Jayararnan; 64. Net income from Maha Sibhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, Arumbakkam, Chennai for the period from 8/1993 to 4/1996 1,44,000.0 l,01,231.00 P.991, P.994 14,50,097.60 P.1966 Grand Total 9,34,26,053.56

#22. The Trial Court relied upon the oral and documentary evidence in respect of the said income and also the objections raised on behalf of the accused and thereafter came to the conclusion as follows: "Thus, answering the objections raised by the accused as above and in the light of the above discussion, my finding on the total income of the accused during the check period is as under: Total income computed as per Annexure III - Less: Item No.55 - Less: Item No.60 - Add: Item No.29 - Add: Item No.27 - Add: Item No.48 - Add: Item No.52 - Rs.9,34,26,053.56 Rs. 35,000.00 Rs. 1,22,750.00 Rs.9 ,30,68,303 .56 Rs. 4,427.19 Rs. 1,15,640.00 Rs. 6,60,064.00 Rs. 48,35,000.00 599 A B c D E F G Add: Item No.33 (Grape Garden) Rs. 4,21,660.00 Total income - Rs.9,91,05,094.75 H 600 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 5 S.C.R. Thereafter, the Trial Court dealt with the expenditure incurred between the check period which is specifically stated in Annexure-IV (Ext.P-2330) which is set out hereunder: , < EXPENDITURE INCURRED BETWEEN 1.7.1991 &

30.04.1996 ANNEXURE - IV (Ex.P .2330) De1ails ofExpenditure . Indian Bank, Abiran:puram Amotmt paid towards interest in respect of the loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- availed by M's. Jaya Publications Bank, Ab~uram, while closing the loan account on 25.06.1994 (Apart from the principal amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-) Repayment of Loan availed by Mis. Sasi Enterprises from Indian Rs.11,44,977.00(P) Rs. 6,87,706.00ffi Rs.18,32,683.00 Payment of interest on loan of Rs.28,00,000/- availed by J Farm Houses from Indian Bank Abirampuram Paymentoflnterestonloanof Rs. 7,00,<XXJ/- availed by Ms. J s Housing Developmeli from Indian Bank. Abirnrmuram Payment of interest on loan of Rs.5,00,000/- availed by Mis. Jay Real Estate, from Indian Bank, Ab" Payment of interest on loan of Rs. 75,00,<XXJ/- availed by Mis. Ani''"""" Printers (p) Lld. m c SI. No. I D E F G H 2

#3. ~-

#6. Amotmtin (Rs) 50,93,921 Exhibits Witnesses P.1027 PW.182 18,32,683 P.1260 PW.182 23,774 P.1212 PW.182 11,887.00 P.1173 PW.182 11,887 P.1163 PW.182 11,81,425.16 P.1233 PW.182 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 7 8 9 Payment of interest on loan of Rs.17 ,86, 000/- availed by Mis. Lakshmi Kalyana Mahasubha from Indian Bank, Mandapam, Abiramouram Payment of interest on loan of Rs.83,00,000/- availed by Mis. Lex Property Development (P) Ltd, from Indian Bank Abirarmuram to corporation of Amount paid Madras sanction of building plan in respect of Mis Jaya Publications for change ofroof at MF-9, Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindv(oaid on 14.2.94) towards 10 Amount paid to Corporation of sanction of Madras towards building · plan in respect of Mis. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., at No.21, Padrnanabha Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 14.2.94) 11 Amount paid (paid to Corporation of Madras towards building plan in respect of Mis. Lex Property Development (P) Ltd., No .149, and 150, TIK Road, Chennai- 18 (Paid on 20.12.95) Garden 12 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at No.36, for additional Poes construction (oaid on ll.12.91) 13 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan at No.5, Murugesan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai (Paid on 7.11.95) 14 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for building plan (Mis. at No.19, Publications) Jaya Pattammal proposed Street, additions and regularization of the existinl! buildine (Paid on 3.3.93) 3,84,400.00 -·· P.1356 PW.182 .. .. 17,52,069.00 P.1330 PW.182 13,840.00 P.65 PW.20 14,560.00 P.64 PW.20 , 1,45,320.00 P.51 PW.19 PW.20 12,700.00 P.58 PW.20 601 A B c D E F 70,140.00 P.54 PW.19 PW.20 1,350.00 P-63 PW.20· G H 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A 15 towards to Corporation of Amount paid Madras sanction of building plan in respect of Mis. Jaya Publications at Plot No.S-7, Ganapathy Guindy Industrial Estate. oaidon 19.3.92 Colony, B c D E F G H 16 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras building plan 226,735.00 P.48 to 50 & 59 PW.19 PW.20 296 No.36, Poes Garden, Additional Block, (paid on 22.11.91, 7.12.92, 10.2.93 and 19.2.93) Spl.C.C.208/2004 Rs. 2850.00. 550.00 2,250.00 21,085.00 26.735.00 17 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras building plan at No.36, Poes Garden, for additions of Securitv room (Paid on 19.2.93) Nuts for building plan Ring to Corporation of 18. Amount paid Madras No.48,Imer Road, Ekkatuthangal, Guindy (i.e.,M/s. Sastri Plates Manufacturing (P) Ltd., (Paid on 26.11.93) Mis. Anjaneya Printers !Pl Ltd .. to Corporation of 19 Amount paid Madras building plan sanction of the proposed alrerations to the existing building at Door No.212, 213 St. Mary's Road, Myfapore, Chennai - 4 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha (paid on 5.2.92) 120 Amount paid to MMDA towards respect buildingplan Approval at Plot No.6, Thiru - vi - Ka Industrial Estate, Guindv, (oaid on 20.2.96) Amount paid towards demolition cost of the old building at Door St. Mary's No.213, Road, Mandaveli. Chennai - 28. 121 99,295.00 P-55, 56 PW.19 26,735.00 P.48 to 50 PW.19 PW.20 & 59 10,925.00 P-60 PW.20 29,850.00 P-61 PW.20 1,785.00 P-62 PW.20 4,76,525.00 P-66 PW.19 PW.20 18,570.00 Ni76 PW.117 PW.20 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 603 22 Interest paid towards loan account No.787 dt.7.10.95 of RBF Nidhi Ltd., upto the end of Check peiiod for the loan of Rs.35 lakh5 taken by Tmt. J. Elavarasi. 23 Amount to Five Star Departmmtal Stores from SB 23218 of Canara Bank, Mylapore ofTmt. N. Sasikala LIC premium payment made by Tmt. N. Sasikala from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mvlannre 126.3.92) Payment made towards DD commission from SB 23218 of Canara Bank, Mylapore for purchasing DD for Rs.9,35,000/- on 13.7.95 24 25 126 Amount paid to Salam Stores on 3.11.92 from SB Ne. 23832 of Selvi J. J ayalalitha of Camra Bank, Mvlaoore AmOLUJt Stru' Depa1tm:ntal Stores from C.A- 2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tm!. N. Sasikala durinl! 1992-95 to Five 27 28 Arriount paid to Alagu Security Services from CA 2196 of Camra Bank, Mylapore of Tnt. N. Sasikala on 13.2.95, 22.12.95, 10.1.96 and 17.4.96 Expenditure towards purchase of books from American Book House, Higginbothams and India Book House by Tmt. N. Sasikala from her CA 2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore Account on 3.2.94 and21.2.94 incurred 129 4,41,569.00 PW.211 A 1,01,315.70 P-823 to 832 PW.154 PW.201 B 13,960.50 PW.201

600.00 PW.201 9,617.00 75,198.12 9,950.00 P-823 to 856, P.1519 P.1519 P.1533 PW.201 PW.120 PW.154 PW.201 PW.201 4,074.JO PW.201 P.1519 P.1527 P.1537 30 Amount paid to Latham India from CA of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 22.7.95 2196 31 Amount paid to V.G.Pan:erdoss from CA 2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 6.11.95 9,065.00 P.1519 P.1538 PW.201. 13,450.00 P.1519 P.1539 PW.201 c D E F G H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c D E F 32 Amount paid to (Raj asekaran & Co.) Auditor from CA 2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 28.1.93, 28.3.95, 3.11.95 33 Amount paid to Keerthi from CA 2196 of Canara Bank ofMylapore ofTrrt. N. Sasikala on 11.12.92 34 Amount paid to Khuzeema Manuwala from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofTmt. N. Sasikalaon 14.12.92 PW.201. PW.201 1,26,500.00 6,633.00 7,165.00 P.1519 P.1540 P.1543 P-1519 P.1544 P.1519, 1545 35 Amount paid to UC of India on 27,497.20 P-1519 PW.201

31.3.93 and 30.3.94 from CA 2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala (13748.60 x 2) towards oolicy No.7 50405742 ~6 LIC premium paid for March '95 in Policy No.750405742 ofTmt._ N. Sasikala ' ~7 Amount paid to United India Insurance on 31.3.93, 13.4.93, 4.8.93, 18.3.94, 24.3.95and17.4.96 from CA 2196 of Canara Bank of Mvlaoore ofTmt N. Sasikala ~8 Amount paid towards L.F. charges am DD commission from CA 2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt N. Sasikala cin 1.12.92, 6.9.93, 14.10.93, 1.10.94, 7.10.94 and 31.12.94. 13,748.60 1,02,039.00 Ex.P.15 Doc.1013 46 Letterof UC, Trichy Dt.23.4.92 PW.201 P.1519 P.1548 to 1553

410.00 P-1519 PW.201 39 Amount debited towards interest 3,170.00 P-1519 PW.201 for T.O.D. from CA2196 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 10.3 .92, 6.9.93, 14.10.<l3, 1.10.94, 31.12.94

7.10.94 and G 40 Amount paid to Abbas from CA 23,800.00 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 2.9 .95 41 Amount paid to Balus Colour Lab from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitm on 28.9.95 H P-1382 P-1383 PW.201 54,660:00 P-1382 P-1009 PW.178 PW.201 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE, J.] 142 Amount paid to BPL Ga!leiy from of Canara Bank CA Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 19.9.95 2018 43 Amount paid to Purnendupal from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jaya!alitha on 20.9.95 44 Amount paid to Chandrasekar from CA 2018 of Camra Bank, Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 12.3.96 45 Amount paid to Tmt N. Sasika!a on behalf of Tr. M Jayararmn towards his share for obtaining the dealership in SPIC Jyothi. 46 Amount paid to K Damxiarasarny Naidu, from CA 2018 of Camra Bank, Mylapore of Se I vi J. J ayala!itha 47 Amount paid to Dr. Giri's Museum from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95 148 Amount paid to HCL Limited from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 7.9.95 149 Amount paid to J. Haridoss from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi. J. Jayalalitha on 13.7.93 50 Amount paid to Tvl. J. K Brothern from CA 2018 ofCanara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 11.1.96 an:! 5.3.96 (Rs.27 ,000 + 82,800) 51 Amount paid to Tr.KK.Venugopal from CA 2018 of Camra Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 14.10.93, 18.8.93, 11.8.93, 5.11.93, 20.12.93 and 11.4.94 1,28,530.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1384 1,00,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1385 25,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 . 1,50,000.00 PW.198 18,700.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1386 57,250.00 1,000.00 P-1382 PW.186 P-1387 PW.201 P-1387 PW.201 P-1382 PW.167 5,100.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1388 1,09,800.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1389 5 ,95,000.00 PW.201 P-1382 P-1390 to 1394 605 A B c D E F G H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H 52 Amount to Tr. K.V. Viswanathan, from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 21.8.93 20,000.00 P-1382 P-1395 PW.201 53 Amount paid to Tvl. Kapoors from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 30.9 .95 54 Amount paid to Tvl. Kapoors by {Cheque cheque No.082199 of Canara Bank) on 15.7.95 1,30, 779.40 12,721.00 55 Amount paid by cash to Tvl. 44,264.00 P-1382 P-1396 P-678 P-1519 P-1554 P-678 P-678 PW.118 PW.201 PW.118 PW.201 PW.118 Kaooors on 4.5.95 and 7.6.95 56 Amount paid to Tr. Kishore from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. J avalalitha on 10.10.95 57 Amount paid tmt. lath a Krishnnamoorthy from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalithaon4.9.95 58 Amount paid to MMWSS Board from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 12.12.91 to 6.12.95 59 Amount paid to Tr. G. Mohan from of Canara Bank J. Jayalalitha CA 2018 Mylapore of Selvi on 29.4.95 60 Amount paid to Madurai Kamaraj from CA 2018 of University Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalithaon 21.7.93 Amount paid Imia Assurance from CA 2018 of Canara J. Bank Mylapore of Se I vi Javalalitha on 1.8.92 to New 61 ~2 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 22.2.93, 24.2.93, 15.10.93 and 14.2.94 ~3 Amount paid to Tvl. Moulis Advertisers from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 18.9.95 25,000.00 P-1382 P-784 PW.146 PW.201 75,000.00 P-1382 P-1397 PW.201 37,046.00 P-1382 P-1398 to 1411 PW.146 PW.201 20,000.00 P-1382 PW.148 PW.201 5,00,000.00 P-1382 P-1412 PW.108 PW.201 9,517.00 P-1382 P-1413 PW.201 1,858.00 P-1519 PW.201 11,00,000.00 P-1382 P-1284 PW.183 PW.201 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINA.Kl CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 607 64 Amount paid Tr. KA- Panchapakesan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 3.11.95 65 Amount paid to Tr. KPrem Olllnd from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jaya!alitha on 12.4.93 66 Amount paid to Tvl Rajasekaran & Co. from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapon: of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 9.3.93, 20.1.95, 9.3.95 and 3.11.95 '67 Amount paid to Tr. Ramamurthy from CA 2018 of C.anara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 '68 Amount paid to Tr. Ra~opal from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92 ki9 Amount paid to Tr. Ramson's from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 5.8.95 170 Amount paid to Ramnad District Consmner Formn from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 6.6.92 ITwo entries) 171 Amount paid to Tmt. Rangaillil1lll from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 1.2.92, 29.4.92, 26.9.92, 3.4.93, 8.10.93, 30.12.94 and 20.5.95. (RsJOOo+ 12ooo+ 7ooo+ 300 o+4000+700o+7000) 72 Amount paid to Tr. Rangasamy from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.11.95 73 Amolmt paid to A-P.Telecom from CA 2018 of Canara Bank, Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayala!itha on 27.01.1996 10,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1414 1, 78,279:80 P-1382 PW.201 P-1415 2,36,120.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1416 P-1417 12,075.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1418 12,075.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1419 6,447.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1420 A B c D 5,940.00 P-1382 PW.201 E 46,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-818, 819 PW.152 M0.637 PW.126 35,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1421 8,915.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1422 F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. 74 Amollllt to Tvl. Rock Advertising from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95 (mo entries) 75 Amollllt paid to R.0.Corporation of Madras from CA 2018 of Camra Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. 4.9.91 Jayalalitha between 27.6.95 76 Amollllt paid to Salam Stores from ~- >-·CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalithafrom9.7.91 to 6.12.95 rn Amollllt paid to Romaga Foam from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha from9.7.91to6.12.95 r?8 Amollllt paid to C. Sango from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitln on 19.4.94 79 Amollllt paid to SBKC Carrier from CA 2018 Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 6.1.95 and 1.12.95 of Canara 80 Amollllt paid to ·SE, MEDC from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore Selvi Jayalalitha between J. 10.7.91 and6.ll.95 81 Amollllt paid to Tr. V.Selvaraj from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 29. 7.95 and 2.12.95 82 Amollllt paid to SMCS Ud., from of Canara Bank, CA Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.11.95 2018 83 AmOllllt paid to Tr. D. Swames\Wra Rao from CA2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.05.95 2,77,666.00 P-1382 P-1423 2,19,566.80 P-1382 P-1424 to 1432 12,73,642.00 P-680 75,352.00 10,258.56 42,400.00 58,463.00 P-1382 ToP- 1452 P-1382 P-1453 P-1382 P~l454 P-1382 P-1455 P-1382 P-1456 to 1462 PW201 PW.188 M.0.159: PW.201 PW.201 PW.120 PW.201 PW.201 PW,201 PW.201 13,000.00 P-1382 PW.152 P-820 PW.201 P-821 M0.637 Page 223 PW.201 8,017.25 P-1382 P-1463 1,00,000.00 P-1382 P-1464 PW.201 608 A B c D E F G H ' ' STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 609 A B 2,00,000.00 PW.201 P-1382 P-1465 P-1466 14,000.00 1,75,24625 12,000.00 Ex.Pl382, P.783 Ex.P.1382, P.1467 P-1382 PW.201 . 12,320.00 P-1382 P-1468 PW.201 c 19,600.00 P-1382 P-1469 PW.201 D 19,300.00 P-1382 PW.201 16,225.00 P-1382 P-1470 PW.201 E 84 Amount paid to Tr. Ram Jethrnalani from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 19.7.95 and9.9.95 85 Amount paid to Venkateswara Cine fromC.A-2018on14.10.1995 86 Amount paid to Adyar Gate Hotel from C.A- 2018 on 19.09.95 87 Amount paid to Agarwal Sweets from CA 2018 ofCamra Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. J ayalalitha on 23.5.92 88 Amount paid to Vijaya Lakshmi Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara IlankMylapore ofSelvi J. Javalalithaon 29.5.92 89 Amount paid to Annapoorna Cafeteria from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Javalalitha on 21.5.97 90 Amount paid to Egmore Bhavan from CA 2018 ofCamra Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.5.92 91 Amount paid to Arasan Sweets fromCA2018ofCamra Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 92 Amount paid to VasanthaBhavan 11,160.00 from CA 2018 of Camra Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92 ~3 Amount paid to Archana Sweets 75,675.00 from CA 2018 ofCamra Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 P-1382 P-1471 PW.201 P-1382 P-079 PW.201 PW.119 ~4 Amount paid to Arya Bhavan 77,580.00 P-1382 PW.201 Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. J avalalitha on 22. 5 .92 95 Amount paid to Welcome Hotel from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalithaon 9.5.92 22,000.00 P-1382 P-1473 X-18 PW.201 PW.112 F .G H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H 96 Amount paid to Ashok Bhavan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.6.92 !l7 Amount paid to Bombay Milk Bar from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha 25.5.92 !)8 Amount paid to Bombay Sweet Stall from CA 20 18 of Canara Bank Mvlaoore on 25.9.92 99 Amount paid to Central Ca re from Canara Bank CA 2018 Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 30.5.92 100 Amount paid to Coffee House from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Javalalitha on27.5.92 IOI Amount to Devanathan Sweets, from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 23.S. 97 102 Amount paid to Ganapathy Vilas from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.5.92 2018 103 Amount paid to Hotel Akash from of Canara Bank CA Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 3.6.92 104 Amount paid Jothi Ananda Bhavan on 4.6.92 from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. J avalalitha 105 Amount paid to Lakshmi Vilas from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 4.6.92 106 Amount paid to Master Bakery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.5.92 107 Amount paid Jayaram Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara J. Bank My lap ore Javalalitha on 1.6.92 of Selvi to Sri. 21,250.00 P-1382 PW.201 7,500.00 P-1382 PW.201 15,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 48,645.00 P-1382 P-1474 PW.201

17450.33 P-1382 P-1475 PW.201 18,042.00 P-1382 PW.201 12,996.00 P-1382 PW.201 18,422.00 P-1382 PW.201 8,840.00 P-1382 PW.201 1,880.00 P-1382 PW.201 9,091.50 P-1382 PW.201 1476 10,224.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1477 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 611 - 108 Amount paid to Mayil Mark Mittai Kadai from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. J avalalitha on 1.6. 92 109 Amount paid to Nandini from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.5.1992 llO Amount paid to New Rama Care from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalitha on 26.5.92 ll l Amount paid to New Agarwal from CA 2018 Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 26.5.92 112 Amount Sweets Bank Mylapore of Selvi Javalalitha on 21.5.92 paid to New Bombay from CA 2018 of Canara J. ll3 Amount paid to Ramalakshmi Sweets from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 3.6.92 ll4 Amount paid to Ro land Bakery from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 18.6.92 ll5 Amount paid to Salem Care from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.5.92 ll6 Amount paid to AGK Travels from · of Canara Bank CA Mylapore of Selvi J .Jayalalitha on 28.9.95 2018 117 Amount paid to Anchor Cabs from CA of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95 . 2018 ll8 Amount paid to Annamalai Bus from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 27.7.93 and 12.3.94 ll9 Amount paid to Govind Cabs from CA of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.9.95 2018 39,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 A P-1478 21,000.00 74,342.25 P-1382 PW.201 X-15 to 17 P-1382 PW.111 B 14,000.00 P-1382 15,150.00 P-1382 P-1479 16,637 .40 P-1382 13,302.90 P-1382 13,520.00 P-1382 P-1480 c D E 15,814.00 . P-1382 PW.201 P-1370 . PW.199 •, F 19,211.00 P-1382 PW.201 . P-1286 PW.185 47,790.30 P-1382 PW .201 P-1481 P-1482 G 15,903.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1483 H 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 5 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H 120 Amount paid to Vincent Travels from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 28.9.95 121 Amount paid as interest towards T.0.D. between 3.11.95 from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha

27.1.92 122 Expenditure incurred by way of DD Commission from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 25.1.93, 27.9.94, 2.5.95, 1.9.95, 22,8.95 and 17.10.95 123 Expenditure incurred by way of folio charges from CA 2018 of Canara Bank My la pore of Selvi J. J avalalitha on different dates 124 Amount paid to CM's Relief Fund from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi Jayalalitha on 5.10.93 125 Amount paid to Kanagabisheka Sarnith from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. J avalalitha on 26.3 .93 to Sacred Heart Amount paid Higher Secondary School from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 8.9.92 127 Amount paid to Rama Anchaneya from CA 2018 of Canara J. Trust Bank Mylapore of Selvi Javalalithaon 12.5.94 126 J. 128 Amount paid toTarnilaga lnipagam from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 1.6.92 129 Amount paid to TNG. Music Academy from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 21.12.91 130 Amount paid to Presidern of Thevar Peravai from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. J avalalitha on 3. I. 94 27,502.00 P-i382 PW.201 11,861.00 P-1382 PW.201 5,0ll.00 P-1382 PW.201

575.00 P-1382 PW.ZOI 1,00.008.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1484 1,08,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1485 l ,00,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 ·1,00.008.00 P-1382 PW.201 X-12, 13, 14 PWllO 27,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 P-1486 1,00,000.00 P-1382 PW.201 PW.109 1,00,000.00 P-1382 PW .201 P-1487 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS.. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) 613 131 Amount paid to R.V. Tower from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofSelvi J. Jayalalithaon 17.3.92 132 Amount paid to Warla Tmst from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 14.9.93 133 Amount paid to Tamil Nadu Films from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 20.9.95 49,500.00P - 1382 P-1490 PW.201 134 Amount paid to A-K. Yijaya Shankar from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 17.9.93, 5.4.95, 22.7.95, 20.8.94 & 26.10.95 134 Amount paid to A-K. Vijaya Shankar from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 17.9.93, 5.4.95, 22. 7.95, 20.8.94 and 26.10.95 135 Amount paid to Sun Shine from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylaporc of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 9.10.95 136 Amount paid to Tr. Saminathan from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 15.9.95 and 10.10.95 137 Amount paid to Tan1il Na du Govemrrent Fund from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. J avalalitha on 11.1.92 . 138 Amount paid to United India Insurance from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 9.1.92, 28.3.92, 31.3.93, 29.7.93, 18.3.94, 16.3.95 and 24.3.95 50,000.00 1,00,000.00 P-1382 P-1488 P-1382 P-1489 PW.201 A PW.201 49,500.00 P-1382 P-1490 PW.201 80,000.00 P-1382 P-1491 To 1494 76,450.00 . P-1496 P-1382 PW.201 PW.201 94,000.00 P-1382 P-1496 PW.201 l ,08,000.00 P-1382 1,32, 796.00 P-1382 P-I497 to I500 B c D E F 139 Amount paid to VI G Tech from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 10.1.96 140 Amount paid to Chinna Thambi from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 29.5.92 91,I57.64 P-1382 P-1018 PW.20I PW.180 G 7,500.00 P-1381 P-1389 PW.201 H 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 5 S.C.R. 2,50,000.00 P-1381 P-1501 PW.201 15,90,726.00 P-1382 P-1502 PW.201

399.00 P-1382 P-1503 PW.201 9,301.00 P-1519 P-1555 PW.201 2,285.00 PW .201 P-1519 P-1556 to P-1565 8,000.00 P-1519 P-1568 PW.201 14,313.00 P-1519 P-1569 PW.201 1,393.95 P-1510 PW.201 1,858.60 P-1510 PW.201 5 ,88,978.00 P-1510 P-1570 P-1571 PW.201 PW.238 . A B 141 Amount paid to Vision Hire from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Javalalitha on 3.3.93 142 Amount debited from CA 2018 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Selvi J. Jayalalitha towards Indian Bank Account Government transactions on 28.8.95 143 Amount paid to Post Master T. Nagar from CA 2196 of Camm Bank Mylapore ofTmt. N. Sasikala on 30.6.95 c . 144 Amount paid to Madras Telephones from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 30.8.94 and 23.3.94 145 Amount paid to MMWSSB from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala between 7.4.93 and 16.3.95. 146 Amount paid to Marine Waves from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofTmt N. Sasikala on 27.2.93 147 Amount paid to SE, MDC from CA 2196 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 24.1.96 148 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras of MS from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 20.6.92 150 149 Amount paid to RO. Corporation from SB 23218 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. N. Sasikala on 5.9.91 (i) Amount paid in cash to Mis. Nathella Anjaneyalu Chetty and Sons, towards cost of Silver items for Puja pwposes silver Kavacham Idol situated in front of Poes Garden residence for Gold Polishing and blass plates on the main doors .of. Poes Garden and towards the cost of six gold necklaces during Sept to Nov. 1995. Rs.1,52,000 for Vinayaga · D E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 615 155 Amount paid to United India from 32,087.00 (ii) Amounts paid to Mis. Nathella Anjaneyalu Chetty and Sons by creque No.93293 and 93294 of Canara Bank Mylapore towards cost of two pairs of Gold Ear studs, studded with Diamonds (Vide bill No.45598 and 45599 - Rs.4.36.978/-) 151 Amount paid to Tvl. N. Rajasekaran am Som from SB 24621 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. V N Sudhakaran on 28.1.93 152 Amount paid to United India from SB 24621 of Canara Banlc, Mvlanore ofV.N.Sudhakaran 153 Amount paid to S. Srinivasan from . CA 2220 of Canara aank Mylapore ofTr. VN Sudhakaranon21.10.94 154 Amount paid to R. Loganathan from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. V N Sudhakaranon 28.2.94 CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofTr. VN Sudhakaran on 18.3.94, 24.3.95, 6.12.95 and 27.3.96 156 Amount paid to OM Enterprises from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 13.3.96 CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 13.8.94 158 Amount paid to SAI Bhas from CA 222 0 of Canara Bank M ylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaranon21.10.94 159 Amount paid to Tr. Sampath from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. V N Sudhakaranon26.10.95 160 Amount paid to Madras Telephones from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. V N Sudhakaran on 19.9.95, 7.11.95, 26.2.96 and 26.4.96 IRs.399 x 5l P-2262 PW.23.8 P-2263 . 10;000.00 P-1572 P-1574 5,710.00 4,500.00 3,000.00 P-1572 P-1575 P-1576 P-1590 P-1576 P-1591 P-1576 P-1592 to 1595 36,105.00 P-1576 . P-1576 PW.201 PW.96. P-1596 4,500.00 34,960.00 P-1576 P-1597 P-1576 P-1598 1,995.00 P-1576 P-1599 to 1603 A B c D E F G H 157 Amount paid to Tr. P. Raghur from 2,500.00 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. 616 A 161 Amount debited towards DD Commission from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 16.7.93, 17.1.94, 19.l.94and 14.5.94 towards TOD from Interest paid CA 2220 of Canara Bank My la pore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 31.12.94, 15.12.95 and 7.3.96 (813 + 930 + 360) 162 B 163 Amount paid to Tr. Krishna from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 9.11.94 164 Amount paid to Post Master from Canara Bank CA Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 30.6.96 2220 of 165 Amount paid to upfront from CA 2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaranon27.I0.95 166 Amount paid to Tr. Anilkumar from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mvlanore ofTmt. J. Elavarasi. 167 Amount paid to Tr. Narayana Rao from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 6.10.94 168 Amount paid to Tr. G. Prabhakar Reddy from CA 2219 of Canara J. Bank Mylapore of Tmt. Elavarasi. On 12.8.94 169 Amount paid to Tr. P.V.Ravikumar from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 28.9.94 170 Amount paid to Tr. Suresh Bhatia from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 14.3.95 171 Amount paid to Tr. R. Vijayan from 2219 of Canara Bank J. Elavarasi. CA Mylapore of Tmt. On 27.4.95 172 Amount paid to Tr. A- K.Vijaya Shankar from CA 2219 of Canara Bank My.la pore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 5.4.95 c D E F G H

300.00 P-1576 2,_103.00 P-1576 2,500.00

399.00 3,500.00 P-1576 P-1604 P-1576 P-1605 P-1576 P-1609 2,500.00 P-1618 PW.201 PW.97 P-1619 4,500.00 P-1618 PW.201 P-1620 PW.195 2,500.00 P-1618 PW.201 P-1621 1,000.00 P-1618 P-1622 PW.201 PW.114 2,00,000.00 P-1618 PW.201 P-1623 2,000.00 P-1618 PW.201 20,000.00 P-1618 P-1624 PW.201 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 617 173 Amount paid to Milan Jothi from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofTmt. J. Elavarasi. On 21.3.94 12,500.00 P-1618 PW.201 P-785 to PW.147 174 Amount paid to United India 21,494.00 787 P-1618 P-1625 PW.201 17,305.00 P-1618 PW.201 1,203.00 P-1618 PW.201 177 Amount paid to MMDA for 2,90,675.00 PW.128 P-725 P-718 P-726 P-727 Insurance from CA 221 9 of Canara Bank Mylapore ofTmt. J. Elavarasi. On 18.3.94, 24.3.95 and 27.3.96 175 Amount paid to MMSWWB from CA 2219 ofCanaraBank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 2.6.95 176 Amounts debited from CA 2219 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi towards cheque book and DD Commission etc., on different dates allotment of a plot at Door No .E-83, Besant Nagar, by A-3 on 3.3.93 and development charges Rs.1500/- on3.3.93 and scrutiny fee of Rs.475/- on 1.3.93. Plot cost Dev.Ch. Scrutiny fee Rs Rs. 2,88,75 0.00 1,500.00 Rs. 1Z~ QQ R<.2 oo 675 00 Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1987-88 Rs.2675.00 (11/92) Rs.227770.00128.8.95) Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1988- 89 Rs.9282.00 (11/92) Rs.554<00.00 (28.8.95) Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1989-90 Rs.9905.00(11/92) Rs.808256.00128.8.95) Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1990-91 Rs.61549.00 ( 11/92) Rs.500000.00 (20.11.95) Rs.500000.00 (8.12.95) Rs.500000.00(18.01.96) Rs.500000.00 (25.02 .96) Rs.500000.00 (19.03 .96) Rs.500000.00124. 04 .96) 178 179 180 181 25,445.00 PW.227 5 ,63,482.00 PW.227 8,18,161.00 PW.227 30,61,549.00 PW.227 ' A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2017] 5 S.C.R. 25,78,065:tJO . PW.227 182 183 184 Income Tax remitted by Selv.i l- Jaya!alitha for A-Y. 1991-92 Rs.378065.00(20.11.92) Rs. I 000000.00( I .. I 0.94) Rs. 500000. 00 (26.12.94) Rs. 700000.00122.1.94) Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1992-93 Rs. 3891.45 (23 .11. 92) Rs.3343.00 fll 2.93\ Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1993-94 Rs.523757.00( 15.12.92) Rs.349171.00( 16.3.93) Rs.15442.00(13.3.96\ Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1994- 95 Rs.87158.00( 15.9.93) Rs.87158.00 (I 5 .12 .93) Rs.116212.00JI 5.3.94) Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1995-96 Rs.87158.00( 15.9.94) Rs.87158.00( 15.12.94) Rs.116212.00.115.3.95\ Income Tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. I 997-98 Rs.87158.00( 13.9.95) Rs.87158.00(8.12.95) Rs. I 16212.00.fl4.3.96) 188 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. 186 187 185 Jayalalitha for A-Y. I 987- 88 during 11192 189 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1988- 89 during 11/92 3,92,488.00 8,88,370.00 2,90,528.00 . 2,90,528.00 9,24,316.00 34,381.00 - 89,619.00 190 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. 2,68,475.00 Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1989-90 during 11192 . 191 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. 6,02,757 .00 Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1990-91 during 11/92 192 Wealth t.ax remitted by Selvi J. 7,18,542.00 Jayalalitha for A-Y. 1991-92 on 23.11.92 193 Wealth tax remitted by Selvi J. 13,51,590.00 PW .201 Jayalalitha for A-Y .1992- 93 on 23.11.92 PW .215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.215 PW .227 PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.215 PW .227 PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 PW .215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 .PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.201 618 A B c D E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 619 194 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. '- Sasikala for A-Y. 1991-92 during 2,23, 750.00 2193 195 196 Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1992-93 during Income Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1993-94 during 13.3.96 197 Wealth Tax remitted by Tm. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1991-92 during 198 Wealth Tax remitted by Tmt. N. Sasikala for A-Y. 1992-93 during 199 Expenditure by way of ODs and P.Os taken in favour of Tr. Syed Saleem of Pet Basheerabad. 7045x4=28100.00 703Sx5 =35175.00 63J55.00 Selvi the SB 20614 of CBI From Secunderabad J. Jayalalitha during the check period to Tr. Ravinder 200 Amount paid through Andhra Bank, Reddy (SB 2803) Basheerabad Branch of CBI 20614 SB ] . Selvi Secunderabad J ayalalitha during check period 1035x6 =60210 10010 lli I~= l~Q~2Q 12QZ~Q . 201 Amount ·paid to J.R. Rao on 1.2.95 from SB 20614 of CBI Secunderabad ]. Javalalitha Selvi 202 Amount Thirumala Fertilizers from SB i0614 of CBI Secunderabad ]. Javalalitha on 11.1. 94 deducted respect of MIDR 26.3.92 source m 6619 · Selvi 203 Tax 3 ,00,550.00 7,62,151.00 14,240.00 1,17,955.00 63,355.00 P-936 PW.164 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 · PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 PW.215 PW.227 PW.228 A B c D 1,90, 730.00 P-936 PW.164 E -· F 76,337.00 P-936 PW.164 3,835.00 P-936 PW.164 G 3,332.00 P-936 PW.164 I H 620 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. ~04 Amount towards BPO Commission from CA 1068 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 21.12 .94 tO\v.lrdS 1068 1205 Amount LC. Charges and Folio Charges from Indian Bank, CA Abirampuram Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 16.4.94, 13.5.94, 15.3.95 1206 Amount paid to Temporary OD as interest from CA I 068 of Indian Bank, Abiramouram on 31.12.94

28.3.95 and 31.3.95 207 Amount paid to Tr. Srinivasalu on 12.5.95 from CA 1068 of Indian Bank, Abiramptu·am of Tr. VN Sudhakaran. 208 Amount paid to Tr. A- K. Vijaya Shankar from CA 1171 of Indian of Tmt. J. Bank, Abirampuram Elavarasi On 22.7.95 209 Amount paid to Tr. D. Srinivasan from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of J. Elavarasi On 7.2.96 Trot. 210 Amount paid to Tr. Dasan from CA Indian Bank, 1171 Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi 14.10.95 . Amount paid to Tr. Ramadoss from CA Indian Bank, Abirampuram ofTmt. J. Elavarasi on 14.10.95 1171 1211 1212 Amount paid to Tr. Ramson's from CA Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 26.10.95 117 I 213 Amount paid to Tr. Vedagiri from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Trot. J. Elavarasi on 3.11.95 214 Amount paid to Tr. Vcerasamy from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram ofTmt. J. Elavarasi on 7.11.95

301.00 P-1111 PW.182

125.00 P-1111 PW.182 . 388.00 P-1111 PW.182 4,410.00 P-1111 PW.182 . 20,000.00 F-1109 PW.182 1,40,000.00 P-1109 PW.182 1,052.00 P-1109 PW.182 5,845.00 P-1109 PW.182 9,963.00 P-1109 PW.182 20,000.00 P-1109 PW.182 3,500.00 P-1109 PW.182 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 215 Amount paid to Tr. Durai Samy Nadar from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. 8.11.95, Elavarasi 12.12.95, (Rs.13500 + 13150 + 14.3.96 27025 + 10800 + 275501 7.2.96,

9.9.96 216 Amount paid to Tmt. Lakshmi from Bank, J. CA Indian Abirampuram of Tmt. Elavarasi on 4.12.95 1171 217 Amount paid to Tr. D. Vi ma I Kumar from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi on 29.3.96 Tmt. 218 Amount paid to Supdt. Engineer from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of J. Elavarasi. On 24.1.96 219 Amount from CA telephone departments Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 29.12.95, 24.1.96 and 23.3.96 (Rs.399 x 3 ) 1171 220 Amount paid towards interest for T.O.D from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, A biram puram of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 31.12.95 (Rs.6455 + 9715)

17.9.95 22 l Amount paid to DD Commission and other charges from CA 1171 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tmt. J. Ela varasi. On 19.10.95, 7.2.96, 9.2.96, 14.2.96, 15.3.96 and 31.3.96 Tele Communication Department. From Indian Bank, SB Abirampuram of J. Vivek slo. Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 14.7.95 222 Amount 4119 223 Amount paid to Tr. M. Natarajan, Tamilarasi Press from CA 1053 of India" Bn ;k, Abirampuram of Mis. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., loan Ale JO Indian towards Bank, Abirampuram in respect of loan availed by Tamilarasi Publication !Pl Ltd .. on 2 5 .6.94 224 Amount paid to Tamilarasi Private Limited Account No.CA 372 of Indian Bank, Abiramp uram from Indian Bank, CA Abirampuram of Mis. Anjaneyo Printers (P) Ltd., on 14.7.94 1053

92.025 .00 P-1109 PW.182 5 91.60 P-1109 PW.182 21,000.00 P-1109 PW.182 1,434.00 P-1109 PW.182 1,197.00 P-1109 PW.182 16,170.00 P-1109 PW.182 6,865.00 P-1109 PW.182 13,072 .50 P-1138 PW.182 40,96,565.00 P-1238 P-1226 PW.182 12,03,435.00 P-1226 P-1239 PW.182 621 A . B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. 16,15,500.00 PW.198 1225 Other item; of household expenditure of Selvi J. Jayalalitha at Poes Garden as per the following particulars. i. Salary for Tr. Jayararnan at Rs.3000/- per month from 9/93 to 10'96 (37months)-Rs.1,ll, OOO/- n. Salary for Tr. Vijayan from 6191 to 4196 at Rs.1500/- per month fur 59 months -Rs.88,500/- iii. Salary for 6 drivers from 6191 To 4196 at Rs. l,500/- per month 16,15,500.00 PW.198 For 59 months - Rs.5,3 I ,000/- iv. Salary for Flectrician for 6191 to 4196 at Rs.1,500/- per month fur 59 months. - Rs.88,500/- v. Salary fur two sweepers from 6191 io 4196 at Rs. 750/- per month for 59 months. - Rs. 88,5001- vi. Salary for Cook Tr. Selvaraj at Rs. 750/- per month for 59 months from 6191 to 4196 -Rs. 44,250/- vii. Salary for Tnt. Rajamma, cook at Rs.5001- per month fur 59 months from 6191 to4/96-Rs. 29,5001- viii. Salary for 7 Assistant Maids (Male am Female servaits) at Rs.200/- per moiith for 59 nmths from 6191 to 4196 - Rs. 82,600/- ix. Salary for Dhoby at Rs.3000/- per month fur 59 months from 6191 to 4196 - Rs.I, 77,000/- Bill xi. Telephone x. Milk expenditure 18 I1rs. Per day At Rs. 7.50 per litre for 59 months From· 6191 to4196-Rs.2,38,950/- Phone No.4991414 for 59 months from 6191 to 4196 at Rs. I 000/- per month (Average bill amount) - Rs. 59,000/- xii. Flowers purchased fur 59 mmths For 59 months at Rs.1,300/- per IIDnth 6191to4/96 -Rs. 76,700/- 622 A B c D E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] P-1019 P-1371 to P- 1376 P-1292 PW.181 PW.200 PW.192 PW.196 PW.238 PW.189 I PW.228 226 Expenditure incurred in connection 6,45,04,222.00 with the marriage of foster son Tr. VN Tmt. Sudhakaran with Sathiyalakshmi on 7.9.95 Expenditure A- incurred · for erection of marriage panda! over and above the admitted I recorded payments (as estimated by P .W .D authorities) Rs.5,21,23,532.00 b. Expenditure incurred towards cost of food, mineral water and thambulam (assessment based on Rs. available 1,14,96,125/- materials) c. 34 Nos. TITAN Watches payment. purchased Rs. l ,34,565.00 d. Amount paid to Tr. Syed Bawker towards dress of Tr. V N wedding Sudhakaran - Rs.1,26,000/- stitching charges e. Amount paid for purchase of 100 silver plates (paid by Tmt. N. Sasikala) Rs.4,00,000 f. · Postiil expenses 5 6,000 wedding Rs.2,24,000 for dispatch of invitations 623 A B c D E ~27 Kodanad Tea Estate in S.No.168 12,20,310.00 o fK othagiri Village i. Expenditure construction of bunglow structure - Foundation Qnly- Rs. 7,00,000/- incurred P-1964 P-1965 PW.205 F ii Expenditure lavin• HDPE Pines Rs. 5.20.315/- incurred towards Tr. 228 Amount paid by Tmt. N. Sasikala Kanniyappan, V.N. Lakshmi Marbles, Proprietor, Choolaimedu, Chennai 94 towards the cost of marbles and · blaze titles supplied to Sengamala Tbayar Memorial College Women at Mannar•udi. - . 10,82,420.00 PW.190 .G P-1382 P-1109 H 624 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. 1229 Amount spent towards electricity power connection for 31-A Poes Garden (new residence) for SC Account SC charge Rs.1,400/- Connection deposit Rs.l,000/- security Electricity consumption charges uoto 30.4.96- Rs.30.210/- Nos.203-43-209 1230 Amount securing electricity power connection 10 respect of SC No.208-43- 216 to 208-43-219 for 31-A Poes Garden at the rateof Rs.6,400/- per service connection 1231 Amount paid to Tr. Rajesekaran from SB Ne. No.25389 of Canara Bank Mylapore J. Elavarasi. On 28.1.93 of Tmt. to United 232 Amount paid India Insurance Company SB No.25389 of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 31.3.93 1233 Amount paid to Tr. Subbarama Reddy from SB Ne. No.25389 Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 12.5.95 1234 Amount paid to Tr. Srinivasalu Reddy from S.B. Ne. No.25389 Canara Bank Mylapore of Tmt. J. Elavarasi. On 12.5.95 1235 Amount spent towards providing extra amenities in Swaraj Mazda Vans (Three) TN -09/H-3541, TN-09/ H- 3595 and TN-09/H- 3506 ofM/s. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., paid to. Tr. Mohan, Nikhil entemrises. Chennai - 14 1236 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges in respect of SC No.211-11-179 dt 1.8.75 of Jaya Publications at C-8, Thiru-vi- ka Industrial Estate, Chennai - 32 for the check Period 1237 Expenditure towards electricity consumption charges in respect of S.C. No.211-11-180 dt. 1.8. 75 of Namadhu MGR at C-8 Tr-vi- ka Industrial Estate the check oeriod 40,690.00 P-67 PW.21 25,600.00 P-67 PW.21 30,000.00 P-1613 P-1614 PW.201 9,369.00 P-1613 P-1615 PW.201 4,410.00 P-1613 P-1616 PW.201 4,590.00 P-1613 P-1617 PW.201 7 ,50,000.00 P-1940 P203l PW.201 PW.148 2,27,750.00 P-805 PW.149 27,529.00 P-806 PW.149 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 625 32 238 Expenditure electricity towards consumption charges in respect of SC No2 l l-11-261 dt 17.3.90 at MF-9, Guindy Industrial Estate, the name of Chennai - Mis. Java Publications. towards charges electricity 239 Expenditure consumption "·1·mises of Mis. Jaya Publications ··,JF-9, Industrial Estate Chennai- 32 fer the check period (including deposit ofRs.12,000) I towards charges electricity 240 Expenditure consumption including deposits in respect of the premises of Mis. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., at No.48, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, ·chennai- 97 241 Expenditure towards electricity consumption chargesand deposits in respect of SC No.211-11-273 of Mis. Jaya Publications for neriod from 9/92 to 12-93 242 Expenditure towards electricity consumption chfirges and deposits in respect of SC No.211-11-303 of Mis. Sasi Enterprises. at A-28, Industrial Estate, Chennai - 32 for the check oeriod 243 Expenditure electricity towards of Mis. consumption charges Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., in the name of the following service connections viz., i. Mis. Sastri Manufucturers, SC No.211-05-141 for the period 9/93 to 4196 - Rs. 1,33,766/- ii. Mis. Sastri Manufucturers, SC No.211-05-142 for the period 9193 to 2195 (disconnected) Rs. 1,4471- - iii. Mis. Uni Offset Printers SC No.211-05-273 for the period 9193 to 4196-Rs. 1,82,1271- iv. Mis. Amar Enterprises SC No.211-05-275 for the period 9193 to 4196 - Rs. 4,21,0931- 2,69,102.00 P-798 PW.19 A 97,381.00 P-789 PW.149 1,594.00 P-804 PW.149 1,08,138.00 P-807 PW.149 58,889 .00 P-808 PW.149 7 ,38,433.00 P-800 To 803 PW.149 I B c D E F G H 626 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 5 S.C.R. value concerned ~44 Amount paid to (over and above the document document No.282/94 dt. 27.6.94 of SRO North Madras) M/s. Fiesta Properties (P) Ltd., by Mis. Jaya Publications towards the cost of acquisition of flat at Door No.9899 of Luz Church Road, Chennai- 4 Total 4,63,000.00 ~;; PW.30 PW.201 P-1903 P-1924 P-1925 P-1935 P-1903 P-1933 ToP- 1935 1245 V ij ayasekar Services 246 Thevar Automobiles 247 K urnaran Silks 248 James Fredrich Grand Total 11,56,56,833.41 44,341.35 9,73,452.00 4,84,712.00 30,00,000.00 12,00,59,338. 71 It appears that the aforementioned expenditures are classifiable D as follows: (a) Amounts paid towards interest in respect of the loan. (b) Amounts paid to Corporation of Madras towards sanction ofbuilding plan. E (c) Amounts paid to Corporation, MMWSSB. · (d) Amounts paid for the purchase of provisions. (e) Amounts towards LIC premium. (t) Amounts paid towards DD Commission. F (g) · Amounts paid to telecom and Electricity Department. (h) Income Tax and Wealth Tax. (i) Household Expenses. (j) Marriage Expenses. (k) Other outgoings.

#23. The Trial Court after analyzing oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the accused have not disputed the loan transactions and as a result whereof it held that the prosecution has proved Item Nos.l to 8 of Annexure-IV. ln respect of Item Nos.9 to 21, G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS.. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 627 the Trial Court after duly considering the evidence, both oral and A doc~entary, held that the accused did not dispute the statutory permission obtained by them for constructing new buildings and addition of the building as noted inExts.65, 64, 51, 54, 63, 56,48,49, 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66 and 76, respectively and therefore, it appeared that thereceipts for such payments and the proceedings maintained by the concerned B municipal authority had been established by the prosecution. Similarly, the Trial Court held that payments made with respect to item Nos.23 to 35, 37 to 44, 46, 48 to 54 & 56 to 176 had been proved by the prosecution. The corresponding documents have already been accepted before the Court and hence such expenditure has been proved by the prosecution. With regard to Item Nos.178 to 198, such expenditures were never C disputed on behalf of the accused before the Court. After analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their depositions, it held that item Nos.229 & 230 have also been proved by the prosecution.

#24. The Trial Coun has duly considered the objections raised on behalf of the accused and rejected the same. Similarly, the Trial Court D has also dealt with other expenditures such as household expenses (Item No.225 in the Chart) and the objections raised on such account on the ground of overlapping entries and it came to the conclusion that the argument of the learned counsel raising the objections cannot be accepted. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the judgments cited before it, the Trial Court came to the following conclusion: E "Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that as against the income of Rs.9,91,05,094.75 and expenditure of Rs.8,49,06,833.00 during the check period, Al acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A2 to A4 and in the names of the business enterprises acquired in their names immovable properties and pecuniary resources of the value of Rs.53,60,49,954.00 which she could not satisfactorily account. Hence, acting u/Sec. 248 (2) of 896 Spl.C. C.20812004 Cr.P.C., A 1 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 13 ( 1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, Al to A4 were parties to criminal conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing pecuniary resources and assets to the extent of Rs.53,60,49,954.00 beyond the known source of income of Al. F · G H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B Hence, Al,A2, A3 andA4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of l.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A2 to A4 abetted the commission of the above offence by intentionally aiding Al in the acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to her known source of income as above. Hence, A2, A3 and A4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. l 09 of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act." c

#25. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor on sentence, awarded the following sentence against the accused: "For the offence u/Sec. 13 (I) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of the 1988 Act, Al Selvi. J. Jayalalitha, D/o. Late. Jayaram, is hereby sentenced to undergo simple 908 Sp/. C. C.20812004 imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.I 00 crores. In default to pay the fine amount, she shall undergo further imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B I.P.C., R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988Act,A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. I lakh. In default to pay the fine, she shall undergo further imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable u/Secs. 109 ofl.P.C., R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2 Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan, A3 Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran · and A4 Tmt. J. Eavarasi are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years each and to pay fine of Rs. I 0 crores each. In default to pay the fine amount,A2, A3 and A4 shall each undergo further imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2, A3 and A4 each are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default to pay the fine amount, A2, A3 andA4 shall each undergo further imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall nm concurrently. Period of custody already undergone by the accused shall be given set off u/Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. D E F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS.. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 629 It is further ordered that, necessary direction shall be issued to A the concerned banks to remit the proceeds of the Fixed Deposits and the cash balance standing to the credit of the respective accused in their bank account and the proceeds thereof shall be appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amounts. If after adjustment, still the fine falls short, the gold and diamond B ornaments seized and produced before the Court (after setting apart 7040 grams of gold with proportionate diamond jewellery), as observed in the body of the judgment shall be sold to RBI or SBI or by public auction to make deficit of fine amount good. The rest of the gold and diamond jewellery shall be confiscated to the Government. C All the immovable properties registered in the names of Lex Property Developments Pvt. Ltd., Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ramaraj Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Signora Business Enterprises (P) Ltd., Riverway Agro Products (P) Ltd., and lndo Doha Chemicals and Phramaceuticals Ltd., which are under attachment D pursuant to G.O. Nos. M.S. 120 and 1183, shall be confiscated to the State Government. Out of the fine amount recovered as above, a sum ofRs.5 crores shall be made over to the State of Karnataka towards reimbursement of the cost of trial conducted in the State of E Karnataka. Furnish a free copy of the full judgment to the accused forthwith."

#26. Being aggrieved, appeals were filed by the accused before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order passed by the Court of 36'h Addi. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore. F The High Court on its analysis came to the conclusion that the value of assets at the end of the check period in respect ofaccused Nos. I, 2, 3 & 4 together along with the firms/companies involved was Rs.66,44,73,537 /- and accepted the value of the assets as indicated by the prosecution. The High Court, thereafter applying the principles laid down in G Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 769 = (1977) 1SCC816, on a calculation of total assets, income & expenditure of accused Nos.1 to 4, their firms and companies, arrived at the percentage of disproportionate assets as under: H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. PARTICUIARS AMOUNT (IN RUPEE<;) Assets as per DVAC i) Cost of construl'tion: AsperDVAC Less: As per records and finding . TotaHA) ii) Marriage Expcmes: AsperDVAC Less: As per finding of this Court Total(B) (A+B) Less: (A+B) 27, 79 ,88 ,945 5,10,54,060 22,69,34,885 6,45,04,222 28,68,000 6,16.36,222 28.85.71.107 TOTAL ASSETS TOTAL AMOUNT (IN RUPEES) 66,44,73 ,573 28,85,71,107 37,59,02,466 Income of Accused Nos.I to 4, firms and companies: SI. No. I.

#8. Particulars Loan as income Amount (In Rupees) 18, 17,46,000 Income from grape Garden 46,71,600 Gifts Sasi Enterprises I ,50,00,000 25,00,000 Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR 4,00,00,000 Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. Rental Income J ,00,00,000 3,22,000 Income assessed by DVAC 9,34,26,054 TOTAL INCOME 34, 76,65,654 A B c D E F G H .STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 631 DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS: Total Assets - Total Income Rs.37,59,02,466 - Rs.34,76,65,654 = Rs.2,82,36,812 Percentage = Disproportionate assets x 100 Income Rs.2,82,36,812 x 100 Rs.34,76,65,654 8.12% = A B

#27. The High Court, following the principles laid down in Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra), held that when there is disproportionate c asset to the extent of 10% or below, the accused are entitled to acquittal and accordingly the High Court passed the following order acquitting the accused: "(A) CriminalAppealNos.835/2014, 836/2014, 837/2014 and 838/ 2014 are allowed. D [i] The Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.208 of2004, dated 27.9.2014, on the file of the 36th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Sp!. Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha & Ors.), Bengaluru, is hereby set-aside. Appellants-Accused Nos. I to 4 are acquitted E of all the charges levelled against them. [ii] The Bail bonds of Al toA4 are discharged. (B) The Appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.17/2015, 18/2015, 19/ 2015, 20/2015, 2112015 and22/2015 are allowed in part. [i] Order of the Trial Court relating to confiscation of the F properties both movable and immovable, is hereby set aside."

#28. Assailing the judgment and order dated 11.05.2015, passed by the High Court of Kamataka at Bengaluru, appeals, by special leave, have been filed before this Court by the State of Karnataka and Mr. K. Anbazhagan. Although the State of Tamil Nadu was arrayed as the sole G respondent in the appeals before the High Court, these appeals have been filed by the State of Kamataka, in view of the decisions of this Court in K. Anbazhagan Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in (2015) 6 sec 86 and (2015) 6 sec 158, wherein it was held that it is only the State of Kamataka (being the Transferee State) which is the H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A sole Prosecuting Agency and was competent to appoint the Public Prosecutor.

#29. We have given a patient hearing to all the parties, including the intervenor, in the matter. We have been taken through various documents and the evidence of the parties. B C

#30. Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeals first contended that the High Court has calculated the disproportionate assets by adopting an incorrect method with wrong particulars and our attention was drawn to Page 997 of the SLP Paper Book, where in the table consisting of assets and expenditure, the High Court has reduced the values therein but has inflated the income and thus inaccurately assessed the disproportionate assets to be Rs.2,82,36, 812/-. It is pointed out before us that there are concurrent findings of the two Courts in respect of the fact that the accused did own disproportionate assets during the check period and the difference between the two Courts is only with regard to the quantum. D While the Trial Court held that it is Rs.53,60,49,954/-, the High Court held it as Rs.2,83,36,812/-. It is also submitted that in calculating the disproportionate assets, value of assets, expenditure and income of all the accused has been taken jointly along with that of firms and companies (34 in number). Both the Courts, High Court as well as Trial Court, have recorded concurrent findings and have taken all the assets, income and expenditure of all the accused together. It is further pointed out that the sole source of inflow is of Al, although assets were standing in the names of other accused or the firms/companies owned by them. It is further submitted, as appears from the records, that both the Courts did not accept the claim to consider the case of Al andA2 toA4 separately.· F Hence, it is submitted that now they cannot claim such a course to be E adopted at this stage before this Court.

#31. It is also submitted that both the Courts have rejected the claim ofNamadhu MGR scheme which according to the accused worked out to more than Rs.14 crores during the check period and that the finding of the Courts that all properties purchased by the 6 companies actually belonged to accused has not been challenged by anybody and therefore it stands.

#32. Mr. B. V. Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State ofKarnataka contended that ifthe final figures arrived by the High Court (appearing at Pages 997-998 ofits judgment) are accepted G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 633 and apparent errors therein including calculation and arithmetical errors A as also error apparent on the face of the record are corrected, the disproportionate assets will be more than Rs.35 crores and this alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction, according to him. Mr. Acharya has placed before us a Chart which is as follows: S. No. ERROR COORECflONS I.

#3. CALCULATION The method of calculating DA is wrong. If all the findings of the high court is accepted in toto then the ERROR !l!I!Qunt QfQ.A. is &.143823215 i.~. 41.3'1'.'q ~not &; 2 82J!i 3!! BIZ i e 8 12% [ll! held b)': the l:!igb Court -(The previous two charts have details of the same) ARITHMETIC ERROR . While totalling loans as incoire at (Pg.939 Vol IV), the High Court l:Bs connritted an arithmetic error to the tune of 13.50 Crores. If this arithmetic error is alone mrres; tl:d tbi:n tb~ Oispmpotli!lnall: ~I:! !:Qlllll IQ Rs.16,32,36,812/-i.e. 76.7% This is fully covered in Pg 1028-1030-SLPVol. IV ADMISION OF Under Expenditure: ACCUSED 'Which Cost of Construction : The accused have achnitted that the c'Ost of construction incurred is Rs.8,60,59,261 -Pg 2350 Vol IX Ho'Mlver the High Court values the same at Rs.5, 10,55,060 - Pg 979 Vol IV, Rs.3,50,05,210 lesser than ire admitted atrount. Under income: Business income of Jaya Publication: The accused l:Bve admitted that the income of Jaya Publication was Rs.1,15,94,849/- (As per written submission of A-2 - Extrac1ed in Pg 1034 SLP Vol IV). The High Cotrt calculated this at Rs.4 Crores - Pg 946-960 Vol IV. 'Which is Rs.2,84,05,151/- more than the achnitted amount.

#4. GIFTS INCOME AS Gifts as incoire is subject matter of SLP Nos.1163-1167 of2012-Pg 1032-1033 Present SLP Vol IV. Therefore although Trial Court has held that gifts received c'311llot be held to be a lawful source of income-Pg 1283-1296 Vol V, the High Court has added 1.5 Crores as income mder this head, much is liable to be reduced. B c D E F G H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A Therefore ifthe above corrections are carried out, the disproportionate assets will be : l.On the basis of finding of High Court· Rs.14,38,93,645

2.0n the basis of finding of High Court, correction of the other mistakes in arithmetic, admissions of accused and disallowing gifts as income: 14,38,93,645 Omission of Expenses -Corrected 13,50,00,000 Totalling Error- Corrected 3,50,05,210 Admission Reg Valuation of Construction 2,84,05,151 Admission Reg Business income of Jaya Publication 1,50,00,000 Gift - which is illegal

#5. Dimrouortionate Asset- 35.73.04.006 Income will have to be :. 16,92,60,503 Disproportionate Asset (D.A.) 35,73,04,006/- % of D.A. = 35,73,04,006 x 100 = 211.09% 16,92,60,503 Hence, he submitted that this process alone is sufficient to sustain B c D E the conviction.

#33. Mr. Acharya further contended that the findings of the High Court regarding the value of assets are patently erroneous and F unsustainable. He submitted that the High Court has accepted the value given by DVAC except for a single head i.e., value of additional constructions. The High Court has accepted the amount of expenditure ·'·except for 1 item i.e. marriage expenditure and the High Court has added 7 items towards the income which are patently erroneous. Mr. Acharya G drew our attention to Annexure-III (64 items - Annexure-III, Pages 1224-1233 ofVol.V) and submitted that the income includes loan, interest, rental, agricultural income and fixed deposits. According to the prosecution, the said amountis Rs.9,34,26,054/- (which would appear at Pages 1224-1233 ofVol.V). According to the Trial Court, the income would be Rs.9,91,05,094.75/- (appearing at Page 1396 of Vol. VI). H However, the High Court has shown such income as Rs.34,76,65,654/- STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 635 (appearing at Pages 997-998 of Vol. IV). It is submitted that the High A Court considered additional income under 7 heads and has increased the income to Rs.34,76,65,654/-.

#34. The High Court has shown the value of income from loan as Rs.24,17 ,31,274/-which contains error of totalling and the sum total of these 10 items ought to be Rs.I 0,67,31,274/-. Therefore, there is a totalling B error of Rs.13,50,00,000/-. He further contended that these loans as income cannot be taken into consideration as has been taken by the High Court. Since the prosecution has already considered such loans as income which appears atAnnexure-III at Page 1228 Vol. V (Items 1-8) and expenditure atAnnexure-IV (Page 1397 of Vol.VI, Items 1-8). He drew our attention to the High Court judgment regarding 10 loans, which C would appear at Page 938-939, Vol. IV of the SLP Paper Book, which is asunder: I. Ex.PI027

#2. Ex.Pl IOI

#3. 4.

#7. 8. Ex.Pl 114 Ex.P1162 Ex.Pl 172 Ex.Pl21 l Ex.Pl260 Ex.PJ330 Ex.PJ354 9. 10. Ex.P1357 OMTI.rlndian Bank, J aya Publications Agricultural MD. Loan, Indian Bank, Guna Bhushani. On request ofGuna Bhushan~ they changed the loan liability to A2, A3 and A4 since they became the share holders. Indian Bank-Al Indian Bank J. Real Estate Indian Bank JS.Housing Indian Bank - , J. Farm House Indian Bank- Sasikala - Indian Bank- V.N.Sudhakaran Ramarai APm Mill Ltd Indian Bank- Mahalakshmi Kalvanamandaoa Total Rs.1,50,00,000.00 Rs.3, 75,00,000.00 D Rs.90,00,000.00 Rs25,00,000.00 Rs.12,46,000.00 Rs.50,00,000.00 Rs25,00,000.00 Rs.1,57,00,000.00 Rs.I.65.00.000.00 Rs.17 ,85,274.00 Rs.24.17.31.274.00 E F G H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c

#35. Mr. Acharya pointed out that the High Court has wrongly taken into account the above-mentioned 10 Joan amounts, being the Joan from Indian Bank. Regarding the loan ofRs.l,50,00,000/- by OMTL Jaya Publication, which is shown as item No. l in Annexure-IV Ext.-P 2330, Page 1397 of Vol.VI, (being expenditure list), he submitted that this amount cannot be taken into account by the High Court. He also drew our attention to the deposition made by PW-182 and PW-160 wherefrom it appears that the said loan was repaid. The Trial Court has dealt with such loan as it is specifically stated that the said loan was closed on June 25, 1994. Mr. Acharya therefore submitted that the High Court taking this amount again, would amount to a double entry.

#36. Regarding MD Loan of Rs.3,75,00,000/- which is shown as Item No.8 in Annexure III Exh.P-2329, Page 1225 of Vol. V (income list), it is submitted by Mr. Acharya that this Joan has been discussed by the Trial Court at Page 1237-1239 of Vol. V while dealing with income and the Trial Court has accepted the case of the prosecution. The accused D at no point of time have disputed about any Joan not being taken into consideration by the prosecution. Mr. Acharya therefore submitted that the High Court should not have taken this amount into consideration as taking this amount again, would amount to double entry.

#37. Mr. Acharya further submitted that the Loan of Rs.90,00,000/- E which has been taken after the check period is only a credit voucher shown in Exh.P-1114, marked by PW-182, who has deposed that this Joan was taken in August, 1996 i.e. after the check period. He therefore submitted that this loan could not have been considered by the High Court at all. F

#38. Regarding the Loan ofRs.25,00,000/- which is shown as Item No.4 in Annexure-III Exh.P-2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V (Income list) and Item No.5 of Annexure-IV, Exh.P-2330, Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by Mr. Acharya that this amount has been deposed to by PW-182 andmarked as Exh.P-1161to1163 through him. He submitted that although the Bank had sanctioned Rs.25 lakhs, it G had released only a sum ofRs.5 lakhs. The principal amount and interest has not been paid back by the firm. The Trial Court has discussed this Joan at Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and at Page 1417 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure. Mr. Acharya submitted that this income has been duly considered and the High Court could not have taken the amount ofRs.25 lakhs under this head. H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J .] 637

#39. Regarding the loan ofRs.12,46,000/- J.S. Housing which is A shown as item No.3 in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item N0.4 in Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by the learned counsel that this loan has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1171 to 1173 through him. He submitted that although the Bank had sanctioned B Rs.12.46 lakhs, it had released only a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs and the principal amount and interest has not been paid back by the firm. The Trial Court has discussed this loan at Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and at Page 1417 ofVol. VI while dealing with expenditure. Mr. Acharya, therefore, submitted that this income has been duly considered and the High Court could not have taken the amount of Rs.12.46 lakhs under C this head.

#40. Regarding the loan ofRs.50,00,000/- J. Farm House which is shown as item No.2 in Annexure-Ill Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item No.3 in Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by the learned counsel that this D loan has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1211-1212 through him. He submitted that although the Bank had sanctioned Rs.SO lakhs, it had released only a sum of Rs.28 lakhs and the principal amount and interest has not been paid back by the firm. The Trial Court has discussed this loan at Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and at Page 1416 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure. Therefore, E Mr. Acharya submitted, this income has been duly considered and the High Court could not have taken the amount of Rs.SO lakhs under this head.

#41. Regarding the loan of Rs.25,00,000/- by Sasikala which is shoWn as item No. I in Annexure-lll Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V, F (Income list) and Item No.2 in Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by the learned counsel that this amount has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1260 through him. He submitted that the principal amount due under this account was Rs.13,55,023 and the Trial Court has discussed this loan at G Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and at Page 1416 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure. Therefore, Mr. Acharya submitted that this income has been duly considered and the High Court could not have taken the amount of Rs.25 lakhs under this head.

#42. Regarding the loan ofRs.l,57,00,000/- by Sudhakaran (A3) H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A which is shown as item No.7 inAnnexure-III Ext-P 2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item No.8 in Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by Mr. Acharya that this loan has been taken by Lex Property Development Ltd. and not by Sudhakaran. It has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked as B Exh.P-1330 through him. He submitted that the principal amount due under this account was Rs.83,00,000 and the Trial Court's discussion on this loan is at Page 1234 of Vol. V while dealing with income and at Page 1418 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure. Therefore, Mr. Acharya submitted, this income has been duly considered and the High Court could not have taken a sum of Rs.1.57 lakhs under this head. c

#43. Regarding the loan of Rs.1,65,00,000/- by Rarnraj Agro Mills Ltd. it is submitted by the learned counsel that this loan is not shown as an item in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) or as an item in Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list). It has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked as D Exh.P-1349-1354 through him. Exh.1354 is a statement of account of OCC-19 ofRarnraj Agro Mills Ltd. PW-235 at 145 ofVol. 11 has stated of his knowledge about Rs.1.65 crores being sanctioned. However, there is no evidence of disbursement of this loan amount. Mr. Acharya submitted that the amount due to the Bank on this account was Rs.39,10,781/., hence, the High Court could not have taken a sum of Rs.1.65 crores E under this head.

#44. Regarding the loan of Rs.17,85,274/- by Mahalakshmi Kalyanamandapa, which is shown as item No.6 in Annexure-III Ext.-P 2329, Page 1224 of Vol. V, (Income list) and Item No.7 in Annexure-IV Exh.P-2330 Page 1397 of Vol. VI (Expenditure list), it is submitted by F Mr. Acharya that this has been deposed to by PW-182 and marked as Exh.P-1357 through him. He submitted that the amount due in this account wasRs.19,81,802 and the Trial Court's discussion on this loan is at Page 1234 of Vol. Y while dealing with income and at Page 1417 of Vol.VI while dealing with expenditure. Therefore, Mr. Acharya submitted that this income has been duly considered and the High Court could not have taken a sum of Rs.17 .85 lakhs under this head. G

#45. Mr. Acharya thus submitted that the detailed discussion in the preceding paragraphs will clearly disclose that that the High Court considered these 10 items against the weight of the evidence on record H and the entire amount of Rs.24,17,31,274/- which after deduction of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 639 Rs.5,99,85,274/-comes to Rs.18,17,46,000/-is liable to be set aside. He A further contended that the accused have nowhere in their written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., their Memorandum of Appeal or their written arguments before the Trial Court and the High Court, taken any plea of any loan from nationalized banks being left out of consideration while calculating the income and expenditure and then arrived at the B value ofRs.9,34,26,054/-(Page 1224, Vo. V) andRs.11,56,56,833/-(Page 1397, Vol. VD, respectively. Therefore, he contended that 10 items valued at Rs.24,17,31,274/- taken by the High Court at Page 939, has to be totally excluded since the same amounts to nothing but double credit. If this error is corrected, than the income has to be reduced by, according to him, Rs.18,17,46,000/-. Therefore, from the finding of the total income C ofRs.34,76,65,654/- of the High Court, an amount of Rs.18, 17,46,000/- is liable to be deducted and the total income would be only Rs.16,59,19,654/- and not Rs.34,76,65,654/~. He further contended that from this amount, if we deduct the income on the basis of admission and gift treating it as income, then the income will be Rs.16,59,19,654/- - D Rs.2,84,05,151/- (admitted amount)+ Rs.1,50,00,000/- (gifts) = Rs.12,25,14,503/-.

#46. Mr. Acharya further contended that significantly the accused are not pressing for remand of the case to the appellate Court (High Court). Consequently, the, accused accept all the findings of the High Court. Of course, this Court will have to correct the calculation mistakes E or arithmetic errors and also errors apparent on the face of the record. Reacting to the ingenious endeavour on the part of the respondents to maintain their-acquittal by only assailing the errors committed by the Trial Court, while abstaining from questioning any finding of the High Court, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the choice before the F respondents was two-fold:- i) To treat all assets together as one unit and sustain the same, subject to this Court modifying the same by correcting calculations/mathematical errors as also considering admissions of accused and excluding illegal income as pointed.out by the G appellants at Chart No.6 (pages 18 to 20) which results in the figure of above Rs.35.00 crores as disproportionate assets; or ii) to assail the findings of the High Court and request for a remand of the case to the High Court to hear the appeals filed by them in the presence of the State· of Karnataka, which is the sole prosecuting agency. H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. Without following one of the above two options, accused cannot claim confirmation of acquittal by merely pointing out few infirmities in the order of the Trial Court and without proper analysis of the evidence on record, he urged.

#47. It is further the case of the prosecution that the Accused Nos. l to 4 have entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, the Accused No.l (Al) who is a public servant had come into possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the tune of Rs.66.65 crores during the check period (1991-1996). It is further the case of the appellants thatA2 toA4 have abetted Al in the commission of the offence. A B c E

#48. It is the case of the appellants that whenA2 toA4 had jointed the household of Al, they did not have any worthwhile property/asset in their names. They did not have any independent source of income. Properties were acquired in the names of newly formed or acquired thirty two firms/companies and two existing firms, i.e., Jaya Publications D and Sasi Enterprises in which Al and A2 were partners. Among these entities, only few were registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956 and all others are firms. In the said films or companies, A2 or A3 or A4 or all of them are partners or directors. It is not in dispute that the said properties were acquired during the check period. It is further submitted that it is on record that six firms were registered on a single day, i.e., on 25.01.1994, where partners were A2, A3 and A4 and ten other firms were registered on another single day, i.e., on 06.02.1995, where A2, A3 and A4 were the partners and further in Lex Proeprty Development (P) Ltd., A3 and A4 were the directors, which would be evident from the deposition of PW3 (D. Thangavalu in Vol.2, Pg. 11- 23). It was further pointed out that about 50 bank accounts were opened in Indian Bank, Abiramapuram Branch and Canara Bank, Mylapore in the names of accused and the firms/companies, which would be evident from the deposition of PW-182 (A.R. Arunachalam in Vol.8-Pages 90- 182) and PW-201 (C.K.R.K. Vidyasagar in Vol.9-Pages 80-231). It is G also submitted that the accused shared common auditors, architects and F accountants.

#49. On the question of abetment and conspiracy, Mr. Acharya has duly taken us through the Paragraph Nos. 88 to 99 of the judgment and order of the Trial Court appearing at Page Nos. 1838-2028 in Vol. 7 & 8 H and submitted that there was no source of income of A2 to A4 and STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 641 further A2 to A4 were not related to Al. Moreover, A2 to A4 resided A with Al.

#50. It is submitted that the properties standing in the name of A3; formation oflarge number of firms in the names of A2 to A4; opening of 50 ba1* accounts and transfer of funds from one account to another and cash credits into the banks shows that the origin of the resources is from · B A 1. According to the prosecution, the other circumstances which disclose the conspiracy and abetment would appear from the following facts:- (i) General Power of Attorney was given by Al to A2; (ii) Constitution of various firms; (iii) Operations of firms from residence of A 1; (iv) Installation of A2 to A4 in the house of Al; (v) Al had knowledge of capital investments into Sasi Enterprises; (vi) Flow of money from one account to another; (vii) Calling of Sub-registrars to the residence of A 1 and properties were registered.

#51. All these acts would come within the purview of the conspiracy and abetment between A2 to A4 with Al. Mr. Acharya submitted that all the circumstances mentioned above establish the abetment and conspiracy. In support of said contention, the following decisions were cited before us:-

#1. Saju Vs. State of Kera/a - (2001) I SCC 378 2. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nat/I Thapa & Ors. - . AIR 1996 SC 1744 = ( 1996) 4 sec 659

#3. Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) - (1988) 3 sec 609

#4. Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - c2003) 3 sec 641 C D E F

#5. Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin Vs. State of G Maharaslztra - (1970) 1 SCC 696

#6. M.G Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1963 SC 200 = (1963) 2 SCR 405

#7. Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kera/a - c2001) 1sec596 H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B

#52. He further submitted that to prove conspiracy it is not possible to have direct evidence. The same has to be proved by drawing inferences from the proved circumstances. It is fundamental that the ultimate decision has to be by considering cumulative effect of all the circumstances taken together. He also submitted that in the case of conspirators, each one became an agent of the other and is bound by the actions of others. So far as Al andA2 are considered, one is an agent of other in three ways (1) as partners of two firms, (2) by virtue of power of attorney, (3) capacity as conspirator. c To support his contention, he submitted that: · D • Al had given specific instruction to follow the directions given by A2 (PW-198 -M. Jayaraman in Vol.9-Pg 28-58 @29). • Huge unaccounted cash deposits are made to these two accounts from cash originating from No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai. • It is A2 who has given direction as to which account the huge cash deposits are to be made (PW-198 -M. Jayaraman in Vol.9 - Pg 28-58). • There are numerous inter account transfers showing that all E accounts put together were treated as one account. • Officials were used to locate and purchase lands at various places like Thirunelveli, Uthukadu, Uthukottoai and other places. PW 47 - K. Muthian Vol.2 - Pg.237-245 PW 71 - S. Radhakrishnan Vol.3-Pg 110-170 PW 159-Rajagopalan Vol.7 -Pg 19-124 • Acquisition of immovable properties both agricultural as well as urban lands are as per registered sale deeds numbering 146, which have been produced. They were acquired in the name of individuals/ firms or companies. Agricultural lands acquired were of about 3000 acres of fertile lands of which about 900 acres formed a tea estate (Item No.166-Annexure II, Pg 1588 Vol.VI). These properties were purchased at a cost of about Rs.20 crores. F G H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE, J.] 643 • In respect of most of the sales itisA2 who had given directions A as to the names of which firm/individual the sale was to be registered in (PW 159 - Rajagopalan in Vol 7 - Pg.19-124). • The amounts were paid from amongst the various accounts of the accused/firms/companies and cash. • Most of the Sale transactions have taken place below the B Guideline value. PW 159 - Rajagopalan PW 221 - R.Kesava Ramanujam Vol.IO Pgl62-249@ 172 Vol.7 - Pg 19-124 • In many transactions, the vendor was not kept aware of the purchaser and the registrations took place through the registrars at the residence of A I. So also vendors were put under duress to sell their properties. Instances of officials also being put under duress were available. Evidence disclosed that Al was aware of the transactions. • There were also additional or new constructions made and old buildings were also renovated at huge costs.

#53. Mr. Acharya submitted that the Trial Court has categorized the assets-at Page 1543 in Vol. VI. He furnished us the chart as follows;- CHART NO 10-A For convenient discussion of the issues involved in the case, these assets are categorized by the Trial Court under the following heads. [Pg 1543 Vol. VI] As per Actused in their \.Vrittcn Submission Page 2350 Vol IX

16.19,03,3011- Nature of !assets Item Nos. Value (in Rs.) As Value (in Rs.) Value (in Rs.) Per Prosecution As Per Trial As Per High Page 1543 - Vol Court Page 1837 Court Page 966-979 Vol & 1838 Vol IV VI 20,07 ,80,246 6,24,09.120 Pg: 978 Vol IV Only 97 Sale Deeds considered I to 173, 175, 19, 77, 18164. 701- I htmNable properties (consideration 292,297, ro<t registration) 301, c{ Pgl590Vd VI 302(i), 305 (Exdiding Item Nos.24, 31, 33,64, 66, 127, 145, 150, 159) c D E F G H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 5 S.C.R. A B III New or n Cash paid

#24. 31, 33, 64, over &aOO\e consideration 66, 127, 145, ISO, 15!1 174, 176- 192, 30!, 302 Iii) 284-290. 295 additional constru::tim builrl; rl!S IV Gold ant Diannnd J"""llerv v Sil""' mires c VI F.Ds ant share; 258-277, 298, 303, 305 vn Ca"1 ln!ance in bankacromts JC\\ellery 193-229, 2%, 300. 304 D VIII Vehicles 230-257, 299 2,53,80,619.00

1.58,30,619 NIL -Nil- Pg: 978 Vol IV 28,17,40,430.00 22 ,53 ,92,344 5,53,02,334.75 2,51,59,144 291 48,80,ffiO 20,00,000 3,42,62, 728.0 3,42,62,728 97,47,751.32 97,47,751.32 8,60.59,261/- NIL NIL

2.30.00,000/- 97,47.75132/- s. 10,54,060 Pg :866- 889, 979 Vol IV As per prosecution 979 Vol IV Asper prorecution 979VollV Asper pro~tion 979VollV Asper prosecution 979Vol IV 1,29,94,033.0 1,29,94,033.0 Asper

81.35,1061- prosecution 979Vol!V IX Michinery 293, 294 2,24,11,000.0 2,24, 11,000.0 Asper 94,25,835/- x Foot\War 278 2,00,9(!2.45 XI Sarees 279-281 92,44,29000 Nil Nil XII Wrist Wdtches 21!2-283 15,90,350.00 IS,'XJ,350.00 TOfAL 64A2,89,61

55.02"" 115 piw::cution 979Vol IV -Ni~ Pg%6Vcl IV -Nil- Pg%7Vcl IV /\>per prosecution 979Vol.IV 25,46.52 177 NIL NIL NIL 29,82, 7 I,25t.32 E F GIARTlO-B VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PROSECUTION TRIAL COURT HIGH COURT ASPER ACCUSED 20,07 ,80,246/- Page 1837 Vol VII Page 978 Vol IV Page 2350 Vol IX 16,19,03,301/- 6,24,09,120/- G 19,77 ,18164. 70/- Page 1543 Vol VI H .STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] Some Important Witnesses Who speak of purchase of property are: Vendm~ ~.W-40 Gangai Amaran >-Pg 1639 >-Vol VII ~About names of ~hasers bring left blankl P.W-56Rajaram(500 ~res) Pg 1643 - Vol VII P.W.159 SW- R£<ri<traIS P.W.221 Kesava Ramanujam nserted later- Pg<; 17-18 Purchaser's name of Chief. ~xh- P 105-110 About going to Poes Thiru Rajagopalan Garden and effecting various rel!istrations. 645 A B P.W~ Peter Graig Jooes KK<xianadur Tea ~tate- ~OAcres) c

#54. He also drew our attention to the particulars of these sales, which were furnished before us. The total sale price under these sale deeds comes to Rs.19,77,18,164/- though according to the Trial Court the same is Rs.20,07,80,246/-. The difference is marginal and it can be taken that immoveable properties worth about Rs.20 (twenty) crores have been acquired during the check period. He submitted that to prove D these sales, prosecution has examined about 60 Vendors and about 20 Sub-registrars.

#55. He further contended that though according to DVAC there were 21 items, the Trial Court has taken only 18 out of them and the High Court has taken only 17 there from. Hence he submitted that the High Court has miscalculated the area of construction of 17 items as 1668.39 Squares, i.e. 1,66,839 Sq.Ft. instead of 2174.69 Squares, i.e., 2,17,469 sq. ft. which is nearly 506.3 Squares, i.e., 50,630 sq. ft. lesser than the actual area as per the valuation reports. In support of such contention, he filed a Chart, which is set out hereunder: QIARTl~F VALUATION OF ALL THE 21 PROPERTIES THE FOLLOWING CHART DEALS WITH THE 21.PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE SAMPLE 3 PROPERTIES. SI. ITEM No NOS AS ANNE XU RE-11 P-2328 192 I. DESCRIPnON OF PROSE PROPERTY CUTION WITNES SES EXHIBIT NO. TOfAL C.'ONSTRU CTIONIN SQ MTS VALUATION 87 519

171.00 708,1601- . Building, BoremJlls with Electrical motors & 5 separate power connectionc;. Pumps located at Sy No.46646111&467/2 E F G H 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. Cherankulam Village, VOC District to Mis belonging Riverway AgfO Products Ltd

#2. 186 New/Additional

#3. 187 c

#4. 178

#5. 189 Constru::tion residential. building at Anna No.U66, Na gar, Chennai. New/Additional Coostruction Building at Door No.5, Murugesan Street, T. Nagar, Crennai-17 New/Additional Coostruction residential building at D. 3/178C Vettuvankeni, Crennai New/Additional Coostruction residential Building at No.I, Murphy St., Akkarai. Chennai No.

#8. 179 New/Additional construction building at the Grape Garden Farm Hot5e, in tre limits of Jeedi Meth Petpesherabad Villages in A.P. 180 New/Additional construction posh Bangalow Siruthavur in Cregai MGR Dist 176 New/Additional construction in Fam1 House Bungalows at Payannur in Chengai Anna District

#9. 177 New/Additional Construction building Dooc No.48, Jawaharlal Nehru Industrial Road, Estate, Guindy. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai (Mis. Anjaneya Printers (Pl Ltd .. Printers) A B D E F G H 98 641

289.84 24,83,759/- 98 642 203 10,92,828/- 98 643

2250.41 1,52,59,076/- 98 644

271.8 20,38,959/- 98 645

1009.9 6,40,33,901/- 107 661 1911 5 ,40,52,298/- 107 662

1369.09 1,2590.261/- 107 663

1986.12 2,13,63,457 /- STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 647 116 666

344.87 20,43,000/-

#10. 185 New I Additional Co.rntruction in residential buildingat DoorNo.21 Padmanabha Street, T. Nagar, Chennai- 17 II. 182 New I Additional 116 667

1143.63 29,59,000/-

#12. 188

#13. 183 construction in building at 149, 150 ofTTK Road, Chennai -18 New I Additional Construction m residential building(4 Nos) in the campusat No.11240, Enjambakkam, in New Mahabalipuram Road .Al New I Additional construction in building at Sea Shell Avenue No.2/l-B-3 Apartment Sholinganallore Saidaoet Taluk 116 668

1985.24 53, 11,000/- 116 669

1311.39 80,36,868/-

#14. 184 New I Additiooal 116 670

107.75 8,00,000/-

#15. 181 Construction in Building at Door No.19,Pattammal Street, Mylapore, Chennai New I Additiooal Construction in the residential building at D.No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86. 116 671

3527.5 7,24,98,000/-

#16. 174 New I Additiooal 117 673

1333.83 80,75,000/- Construction in building at 5 B & C East Coast Road, DoorNo.4/130 Raja Nagar, Neelankarai, Chenna i-41 (Ref. Doc. No. 4752/930fSR.O. Adyar) Evaluation Reoort New I Additiooal Construction in Buildings and the change of roof for the works she at MF-9, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai-32

#17. 191 117 674

274.69 (14,17,538) 15,45,000/- A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. 18 190 New I Additiooal 117 677

883.55 39,34.000/- 19 301 - . D 20 147

#21. 146 648 A B c E F G H Construction in Building at S.No.32/2-4, Plot Nos.S-7, Ganapathy Colony, Tr. Vi-Ka Ind!. Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32 Cost ofrenovation and additional construction between June 1992 and 1993, of the building at Plot No.102, !TI Cross, Road, Pon Nagar, Trichy, owned by Tmt. N. Sasikala (covered by Docmnent No.2256/90 dt. 35-90 ofS.R.O.T. O.R.B., Trichvl Cost of construction of compound wall, twin house, staff quarters for 8 numbers and MD Bungalow in Rarnraj MillsCamnus Cost of construction of labour quarters (5) in ground floor & (5) in first floor, I 0 nos. in Ground Floor and I 0 nos in first floor, construction of first floor for Guest House, over the existing ground floor and construction of platform in Rarnraj Agro Mills Campm at v ann•mn alai. TOTAL 144 782

109.99 6,83,325/- 153 822

2560.86 83,41,000/- 205 1964 86 1965

31.38 57,19,800/- 23,076.84 29,35,68,982/-

23076.84 sq mts - 2483.97 squares. The High court has however considered 17 items instead of 21.Therefore the area of construction of 4 items i.e. item nos 146, 147, 192, and 301 is hereto deducted and the total area of 17 items is equalent to 20,203 sq mts which is= 2174.69 squares i.e 2,17,469 Sq ft. The high court has miscalculated the area of construction of! 7 items as 1668.39 Squares i.e 1,66,839 sq ft instead of2174.69 Squares i.e 2,17,469 Sq ft which is n:arly 506.3 Senta'""-" i.e 50 630 Sq ft lesser than the actual area as oer the valuation reoorts. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE, J.] 649

#56. He further submitted that the valuation of the construct~ons A has been made by qualified PWD engineers. Even the defence has examined a retired engineer (DW-95). Detailed valuation reports have been produced and all the engineers who have valued the buildings after inspection have been examined. The contention of the defence that Trial Court has rejected this evidence is not correct. In fact the Trial Court B has accepted the evidence. But having regard to the fact that in valuing the constructions, there are several imponderables and taking note of the possibility of marginal error, the Trial Court has given a discount of 20% which in the circumstances, is reasonable. Having regard to the superior quality of marble and granite used as described in the valuation reports and having regard to the value of various special items, the ultimate C finding of the Trial Court is justified, he urged.

#57. He further submitted that even the accused have admitted valuation of buildings at Rs.8,60,59,261/- excluding one building of Anjaneya Printers. If the value of this construction of Rs.2, 13,63,457 /- is added to this sum, the total will be Rs.10,74,22,718/-. As can be seen D from Chart 10 as reproduced above, under other items of assets IV to XII, the Trial Court has totally excluded the value of Sarees and footwear. Regarding Gold and Diamondjewellary also after detailed discussion at Pages 1756 to 1785, Trial Court has reduced the value from Rs.5,53,02,334/- to Rs.2,51,59,144/- and Silverwares from Rs.48,80,800/- to R.s.20,80,000/-. Regarding other items such as Fixed Deposits and cash balance in bank account, there can be no dispute. Therefore, the conclusion of the Trial Court regarding value of other assets is fully justified as per the evidence on record, he contended. E

#58. So far expenditure is concerned, the High Court has accepted the amount of expenditure fixed by DVAC in respect of all items except the marriage. The High Court has reduced the marriage expenditure from Rs.6,45,04,222/- (as per prosecution) to Rs.28,68,000/-, i.e., a reduction of Rs.6,16,36,222. According to the prosecution, the total expenditure is Rs.11,56,56,833/-. F

#59. He submitted that the main dispute under caption expenditure is regarding marriage. In support of the prosecution case as many as 21 witnesses have been examined as detailed in the chart. Though according to prosecution expenditure incurred for marriage is Rs.6,45,04,222/-, the Trial Court on detailed consideration has fixed the same at Rs.3 Crores. It is thus totally erroneous to contend that the Trial Court has rejected H G 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A B c D E the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he pleaded. In fact the Trial Court on a consideration, not only of the prosecution evidence but also defence evidence of23 witnesses, has rightly fixed the amount of expenditure to the tune ofRs.3 Crores. It is even conceded that a total expenditure of Rs.2 to 3 Crores has been spent for the marriage. According to him, the Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence ofDW's who claimed that the party workers have collected funds and have spent for expenses such as fai;:ade, decoration, food etc. It is unbelievable that a person of the stature of Al, would allow her party workers to spend on the marriage of her foster son. He elaborated that though A 1 has, in her reply to the notice to the Income Tax Department, claimed that A2 has spent amounts under different heads, A2 has failed to account for the same.

#60. Mr. Acharya submitted that according to the prosecution the total income of the accused is Rs.9,34,26,054/- and according to the Trial Court, the total income is Rs.9,91,05,094.75/-. However, according to the High Court, the total income is Rs.34,76,65,654/-. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court added to the income seven items such as: S.No. Description I. 2. 3. 4. Loans as incoire Income from grape garden Gifts Sasi Entemrises JayaPublications andNamadhu MGR Super Duper TV Pvt. Lld. Rental Income

#6. 7. Ammmt 18,17,46,000 46,71,600 1,50,00,000 25,00.000 4,00,00,000 1,00,00,000/- 3,22,0001- F According to Mr. Acharya, there is no lawful source so far as the Gift is concerned. He further submitted that the Trial Comt has rightly disallowed the claim. The High Court has erroneously fixed it at Rs.4 crores based on belatedly filed Income Tax returns, which even if accepted, amounts to only Rs. l.15 Crores.

#61. Therefore, he submitted that ifthe above is the correct position, the conclusion of the Trial Court is fully justified. According to him, the Trial Court has considered every contention raised by the accused and if some of the contentions are not urged before the Trial Court, then the respondent cannot complain before this Court about non-consideration thereof. G H .. -··. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKl CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 651

#62. He further contended that ifthe contention of the appellants A that in calculating Disproportionate Assets, the value of the Assets, Expenditure and Income of all the Accused have to be taken jointly along with that of firms and companies (34 in number), as done by both the courts below, then the explanation offered in the individual chart of Al and the combined chart given by A2 to A4 will be of no effect and B the same do not deserve to be taken note of. The accused have deliberately given their explanations separately as they cannot give any satisfactory explanation ifthe assets are taken jointly.

#63. In refutation, learned senior counsel appearing for Al submitted that the Trial Court wrongly excluded from consideration the Income Tax Assessment Orders in favour of the accused by relying upon the C judgment of High Court of Patna in State of Bihar Vs. Latu Prasad & Am:, (2008) Crl.L.J. 2433, which, according to him, is clearly inapplicable since the order passed by the Patna High Court was in the nature of an interlocutory order. He further stated that while dealing with the assets of Al under the head "Additional Construction", the Trial Court by an D arbitrary method deducted 20% from the overall cost of construction. Similarly, in relation to marriage expenditure, the Trial Court e1Toneously estimated the cost of construction of a thatched panda! and arbitrarily came to the conclusion that the marriage expenditure was to the tune of Rs.3 crores, for which no basis has been given, according to him. He further contended that with regard to the possession of gold and jewellery, although the Trial Court accepted that Al had 7040 gms. in 1987-1988, as reflected in the Wealth Tax Assessment order, it overlooked the other Wealth Tax Assessment orders for the subsequent years whereby there was an addition ofRs.2,51,59,144/- in the holdings of Al, which is also contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that the Trial Court and the prosecution have failed to take into account the incorrie from Grape Garden, interest income, rental advance, rental income, wealth tax refund, income from gifts, Partner's drawings of Al from Jaya Publications and income from Namadhu MGR scheme, etc. F E

#64. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Trial Court, contrary G to the settled law, has required the public servant to offer an explanation to the properties held by A2 to A4 and the companies, without any foundational basis or any evidence to show that those properties in the names of A2 toA4 or companies were acquired out of the resources of Al or that there was any flow of fund from Al to A2 to A4. The Trial H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A Court has sought to attribute criminal conspiracy between Al andA2 to A4 on the sole ground that Al toA4were living in the same house under a common roo£

#65. He further contended that in a disproportionate assets case, the prosecution has to discharge the initial burden to prove that the assets B of the accused were disproportionate to the known sources of income. The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt, the value of the assets possessed by the accused and it has a further burden to show that the properties which were standing in the name of third parties, like A2 to A4 and the companies, were being held benami for the public servant. Once the prosecution discharges this initial burden beyond reasonable doubt, the onus then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for the source of such income. He further contended that for the accused, the standard of proof is one based on preponderance of probabilities and it is sufficient for the accused to provide a plausible explanation that is satisfactory to the Court. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following decisions: D C E F • V.D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - (1966) 3 SCR 736 • State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar - (1981) 3 SCC 199 • Mr. Krishna Reddy Vs. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad - (1992) 4 SCC 45 • AmbaLalVs. Unionoflndia-(1961) 1 SCR933 • K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India & Ors. -(1991) 3 SCC 655 • Prithipal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab &Anr. -(2012) 1sec10

#66. He further contended that in establishing the link between the G alleged benamdar and the public servant, the standard of proof required is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence of a clinching nature, which has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character. He further relied upon the decisions of this Court in Jaydayal Poddar (deceased) through L.Rs. &Anr. Vs. Mst. Bibi Hazara, (1974) 1 SCC 3, Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra), Valliammal (D) by L.Rs. H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 653