STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 14-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 32 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 5 S.C.R. 525 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.300-303 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 14, 2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.J 
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
Unique features, purpose of incorporation and its scope -
A 
B 
Discussed. 
C 
s.13(1)(e) - Criminal misconduct - Al to A4 entered into a 
conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, Al who was a public 
servant at the relevant time came into possession of assets 
disproportionate to the known sources of her income during the 
check period and got the same dispersed in the names of A2 to A4 D 
and the firms and the companies involved to hold these on her behalf 
with a masked front - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High 
Court - On appeal, held: The reasoning given by the trial court in 
respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment is correct in the face 
of the evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and 
conspiracy by A2 to A4 in the commission of the above ojfences 
E 
u/s.13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act - This is evident from the circumstances 
that 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 indicated that with a view to 
keep herself secured from legal complications, Al executed the said F 
power of attorney knowing fully well that under the said powers, 
A2 would be dealing with her fonds credited to her account in Jaya 
Publications - Constitution of various firms during the check period 
was another circumstance establishing the conspiracy between the 
parties - 10 firms were constituted on a single day - Jn addition, A2 
and A3 started independent concerns and apart from buying G 
properties, no other business activity was undertaken by them -
The circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly established that 
these firms were nothing but extentions of Namadhu MGR and Jaya 
Publications and they owed their existence to the benevolence of 
Al and A2 - These firms and companies were operatingji·om the H 
525 
526 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 5 S.C.R. 
residence of Al and it cannot be accepted that she was unaware ol 
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 - Although A2 to A4 claimed 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 indicated that, all the accused congregated in the house ol Al 
neither for social living nor Al allowed them free accommodation 
out of humanitarian concern, rather the facts and circumstances 
proved in evidence undoubtedly pointed out that A2 to A4 were 
accommodated in the house of Al pursuant to the criminal 
conspiracy hatched by them to hold the assets of Al - There was 
frequent and spontaneous if!flow of funds from the accounts of A-1 
to those of the other co-accused and the .firms/companies involved 
which demonstrated the collective culpable involvement al 
respondents in the transactions - The judgment of trial court restored 
in toto against A2 to A4 - Since A-1 died during pendency ol 
appeals, appeals related to her abated. 
s. l 3(J)(e) - Interpretation of the expression "satisfactorily 
account" in the context of the offence of misconduct uls.5(J)(e) of 
Act of 1947 and s.13(J)(e) of Act 1988 -
Word "satisfactorily" 
used by the legislature deliberately 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 satisly the Court that his 
explanation was worthy of acceptance. 
s.l 3(J)(e) - Probative worth of Income Tax Proceedings qua 
lawfulness of the source of income :... IT returns 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 - 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 
G accused 1•ersons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account 
the di;proportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties 
as mandated by s.13(J)(e) ol the PC Act. 
s. J 3(J)(e) -
Gifts received by public servant - Receipt of 
huge amount of Rs.2 crores and f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.