Here's what Supreme Court said in Sasikala's disproportionate assets case verdict

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 lakh.

Published: 14th February 2017 02:28 PM  |   Last Updated: 14th February 2017 02:28 PM   |  A+A-

A view of the Supreme Court premises. | PTI File Photo

By Express News Service

Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose:

1. 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 lakh towards the price of sarees and further reduced the value of gold and diamond to the extent of Rs 2 crore. It also allowed the reduction in the marriage expenses by more than 50% and further discounted the value of constructions by permitting a depreciation of 20%.

2. The unimpeded, frequent and spontaneous inflow of funds from the account of A1 (Jayalalithaa) to those of the other-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 the same to be masked banking exchanges though involving several accounts but mostly of the same bank. No other view is possible.

3. Noticeably, the respondents (accused) accepted all the findings of  the High Court. We have analysed  the evidence adduced by the parties and we come to the conclusion  that A1 (Jayalalithaa) to A4 (J Ilavarasi) -- [A2 being VK Sasikala and A3 being VN Sudhakaran] -- have entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, A1  Jayalalithaa) who was a public servant at the relevant time had come into possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of her income during the check period and had got the same  dispersed in the names of A2 to A4 (Jayalalithaa, Sasikala, Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi) and the firms and companies involved to hold these on her behalf with a masked front. Furthermore, the charge of abetment laid against A2 to  A4  in the commission  of the offence  by  A1  also stands proved.

4. Therefore, we hold that as the sole public servant has died, being A1 (J Jayalalithaa) in this matter,  in our opinion, 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.

5. The Trial Court held that even private individuals could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of I.P.C. and we  find that  the  Trial  Court  was  right  in  coming  to  the conclusion relying  on the  decision  of Nallammal  (supra), wherein it was observed that acquisition and possession by a public servant was capable of being abetted, and observed that 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 in our opinion, the  Trial  Court  correctly  held  in  this matter  that private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section  13(1)(e)  of  the  1988  Act committed  by  the  public servant.

6. Furthermore,  the  reasoning  given  by  the  Trial  Court  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(1)(e)  of the 1988  Act.

7. Accordingly,  in view  of the  reasoning recorded hereinabove in the  preceding paragraphs,  we set aside  the judgment and order of the High Court and affirm and restore the judgment  of the Trial  Court in  toto against  A2 to  A4. However, though in the process of scrutiny of the facts and the law involved and the inextricable nexus of  A1 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.  Nevertheless,  to reiterate,  having regard  to the fact that the charge  framed against  A2  to  A4  is proved,  the conviction and  sentence recorded against them by the Trial Court is restored in full including the consequential directions.

8. Respondents A2 to A4, in view of this determination and the restoration of their  conviction and sentence,  would surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. The Trial Court is hereby also ordered to take immediate steps to ensure that the respondents  A2  to  A4  serve out  the remainder  of sentence awarded them  and take  further steps  in  compliance  of this judgment, in accordance with law.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi:

1. A growing impression in contemporary existence seems to acknowledge the all-pervading pestilent presence of corruption almost in every walk of life as if to rest reconciled to the octopoid stranglehold of this malaise with help less awe. The common day experiences indeed do introduce one with unfailing regularity,  the variegated cancerous concoctions of  corruption with fearless  impunity gnawing into  the frame and fabric  of the nation’s  essentia.   Emboldened by  the lucrative  yields of such malignant materialism,  the perpetrators  of this malady have tightened their  noose on  the societal  psyche.    Individual and collective pursuits  with curative   interventions at all levels are thus indispensable to deliver the civil order from the asphyxiating snare of this escalating venality.

2. Every citizen has to be a partner in this sacrosanct 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.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp