New Delhi: The AIADMK general secretary VK Sasikala, VN Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi, who were pronounce judgment on to undergo four-year imprisonment in the Rs 66 crore disproportionate case involving former CM Jayalalithaa have moved the SC for seeking review of the judgment.
All the 3 are serving prison in Bengaluru jail.
On February 14, a bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitav Roy had sentenced them by reversing the Karnataka HC judgment releasing them in the DA case. As Jayalalithaa had passed away on December 5, 2016 the bench stated the plea insofar she has worried has come to an end.
Seeking review of this judgment, Sasikala and 2 others stated as they are not government employees, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act would not apply to them and that they had been faultily convicted even after the death of the CM Jayalalithaa who was the A1 in this DA case.
They claimed that once the main suspect had dead the charges against them will not last independently. They had not combined wealth as held in the verdict as they were independent income tax assesses and had paid income tax during the related period.
They wanted the court to have a re-look at the judgment and set them at free.
The SC had held that VK Sasikala and others had shaded one criminal conspiracy after other at Poes Garden to make legal the ill-gotten wealth of Jayalalithaa for buying huge properties in the names of “masked fronts.”
It had stated that Ex CM Jayalalithaa did not lodge Sasikala at Poes Garden out of some “philanthropic urge” but with a cold-blooded calculation to keep herself secure from any legal problems, which may arise from their criminal activities.
Coming down deeply on Sasikala and 2 others, the Bench stated the fact that A2 to A4 did combine to constitute the companies to acquire huge areas of land out of the funds provided by Jayalalithaa was also a clear guide that their accumulation in the house of Jayalalithaa was not stimulated by any philanthropic urge for friends.
VK Sasikala, VN Sudhakaran was living with Jayalalithaa without any blood relation between them to mount and further the criminal conspiracy to hold the properties of Jayalalithaa.
Referring to the appeal of Sasikala and 2 others that they had independent income, the bench stated the fact that A2 to A4 did combine to establish the firms to obtain huge areas of land out of the funds provided by Jayalalithaa also was a clear index that their accumulation in the Poes Garden house of Jayalalithaa was not caused by any philanthropic urge for friends and their relations in need, rather to mount and further the criminal conspiracy to hold the assets of A1.
On the contention that they had filed IT returns and were accepted and that there was no conquest of income, the Bench stated that mere declaration of property in the IT returns does not ipso facto connote that the same had been acquired from the known lawful sources of income.