Jaya faces trial in more cases

CHENNAI, Dec 28 (UNI) — Trial in the case against AIADMK general secretary J. Jayalalitha for amassing wealth to the tune of Rs 66.65 crore disproportionate to her known sources of income when she was Chief Minister during 1991-96, commenced here today before Special Judge I.S. Sambandham, with the examination of two witnesses.

Earlier, the judge dismissed identical petitions filed by Mrs Sasikala Natarajan and her relative J. Elavarasi, both accused in the case, seeking to adjourn the trial till they were furnished with Tamil translations of case documents.

He, however, held that both accused were entitled to recall witnesses for cross-examination after Tamil translations of the case documents were furnished to them and directed the state vigilance and anti-corruption departments to provide the same to the accused.

The judge also dismissed a petition filed by Ms Jayalalitha seeking to transfer the case to another court since, according to her, the judge was biased against her.

The first witness, Mr P.V. Rajaraman of Pudukkottai, in his deposition said that he had sold to Ms Jayalalitha, 3,800 square feet of land adjacent to her Poes Garden residence in the city in late 1991 for a sum of Rs 8 lakh.

Mr Rajaraman stated before the judge that slum-dwellers had occupied the land belonging to him at Poes Garden since the early seventies. In late 1991, one Dr Deveshwar had contacted him at Pudukkottai and urged him to sell the land to Ms Jayalalitha "as the slums posed a security problem to the Chief Minister".

Mr Rajaraman deposed that he came to South Chennai for a meeting with Mr Natarajan, husband of Mrs Sasikala, and negotiated the sale price at Rs 8 lakh. He had received three cheques signed by Ms Jayalalitha for Rs 4 lakh, Rs 1 lakh and Rs 3 lakh.

The second witness, Mr Chakravarthy deposed that he had registered the above property in Ms Jayalalitha’s name when he was Joint-Registrar (Central Chennai) during 1991-94.

He admitted to having registered the sale of another property in South Chennai located at TTK Road, Alwarpet, from one Mr Manickam to a firm, Lexus Property Development, promoted by Mrs Sasikala and Mr V.N. Sudhakaran, her nephew and Ms Jayalalitha’s erstwhile foster-son, for a price of Rs 50 lakh.

The judge posted the trial to January 27.

None of the accused was present in the court when the trial began as the judge had granted them exemption from personal appearance in the trial for the day.

The trial in the case against Ms Jayalalitha, Mrs Sasikala and nine other accused relating to the Rs 8.54 crore scam in the purchase of 45,302 colour television sets for local bodies also commenced here before Special Judge V. Radhakrishnan this morning with the examination of two witnesses, which was incomplete.

Ms Jayalalitha, senior AIADMK leader V.R. Nedunchezhian, Mrs Sasikala and her relative S.R. Baskaran were not present in the court. However, all other accused, including former Minister T.M. Selvaganapathy and former IAS officers R. Haribhasker, H.M. Pandey and Sathyamurthy, were present.

The first witness, Mr Sivakumar, Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, said he had been the state Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Director when the proposal to purchase the TV sets for Adi Dravidars with a population of more than 1,000 was cleared.

The second witness, Ms Mercy Milton Joseph, said she was Deputy Secretary, Rural Development, when the complaint about the scam was lodged.

The judge posted the trial proceedings to January 25.

Union Minister K. Ramamurthy today said the Centre’s stand on the Special Courts set up to try corruption cases against AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha should not be construed as an attempt to bail her out.

Attorney General Soli Sorabjee had only made a submission in the Supreme Court explaining the exact legal position on powers to transfer cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and it was not to show any favour to Ms Jayalalitha, he told mediapersons here.

The Tamizhaga Rajiv Congress president said the Tamil Nadu government should have taken all "precautionary measures" before constituting the courts to avoid embarrassment.

He alleged Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi had taken the decision to constitute the courts in a spirit of vengeance against Jayalalitha and said that was the reason why the state government was in "deep trouble" over the issue.

Asked whether there was any move to revive the AIADMK-led front in the state after Ms Jayalalitha’s statement that it had been disbanded, Mr Ramamurthy said: "There is no bid so far to revive the front."

On whether the BJP-led coalition at the Centre would survive if the AIADMK decided to withdraw support, the minister said: "The BJP is not at the mercy of anybody."

Meanwhile, leader S.R. Balasubramanian today denied that he had put pressure on the then Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Joginder Singh to register a case against the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister in the foreign remittances case.

Addressing a press conference here, Mr Balasubramanian, who was Minister of State for Personnel in the previous United Front government, said he was only a Minister of State and the final decision was taken by the then Prime Minister, Mr H.D. Deve Gowda.

"Mr Gowda had at no time had any reservation against registering the case," he said.

In his forthcoming book "Inside CBI", excerpts of which were published today, Mr Joginder Singh had said a Union Minister from Tamil Nadu had put pressure on him to register a case against Ms Jayalalitha. He had also said the minister had a one-point agenda — to see that the CBI pursued the case againt Ms Jayalalitha vigorously "even though no case existed against her".

Mr Joginder Singh had also said the Prime Minister himself had concurred with him that there was no case against Ms Jayalalitha since she had filed returns on her income and enjoyed immunity under the voluntary disclosure of income scheme.

Mr Balasubramanian said it was wrong to say that Ms Jayalalitha enjoyed blanket immunity after declaring the receipt of 300,000 dollars as foreign remittance. Laundered money and drug trafficking money were not covered under the immunity scheme, he said.