Search the Internet           Tips

HC suspends sentences of Jayalalitha and five others

The Madras High Court Friday suspended prison terms of three years rigorous imprisonment and two years RI imposed on former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha, her close friend Sasikala Natarajan and four others by a special judge in two TANSI land deal cases.

Suspending the sentences on appeals filed by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam supremo and others, Justice B Akbar Basha Kadri also granted bail to them on their furnishing personal bonds for Rs 50,000 each with two sureties each for like amounts.

Directing the appellants to get the appeals ready for hearing within two months, the judge said the prosecution would be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail if the appellants were found delaying the appeals.

The appellants, besides Jayalalitha and Sasikala, are former managing director of the state-owned Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation, T R Srinivasan, former rural industries Mohammad Asif, special deputy collector (stamps) S Nagarajan and R Karpoorasundara Pandian, who was additional secretary to then chief minister.

The appellants were convicted for corrupt practices in the purchase of land and buildings belonging to TANSI by 'Jaya Publications', a firm in which the former chief minister and Sasikala were partners and sentenced to three years RI each.

They were also convicted and awarded jail terms of two years each in another case pertaining to purchase of TANSI property by 'Sasi Enterprises' a company in which Jayalalitha and Sasikala were partners. Asif was acquitted in the case.

They were convicted for conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In their appeals, they contended that the October 9 judgement of the trial judge P Anbazhagan was incorrect, contrary to law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case and prayed that it be set aside.

Jayalalitha and Sasikala had stated that the court was wrong in believing the version of the crime branch-CID of the state police and had totally failed to consider legal issues which were in their favour. If the court had properly appreciated the case it could have recorded their innocence and acquitted them.

According to the prosecution the state had suffered a loss of about Rs 41.6 million on account of the property having been purchased in 1992 well below the prevailing market rates and the consequent reduction in stamp duty.

Tell us what you think of this report