Abuse of any power for personal gain is ‘corruption’; bribe is just one form of it. Acceptance of bribe is difficult to be proved by state. If prosecution can show that wealth of public servant was disproportionately higher than known source, the burden shifts to accused to show the legality of the source of income, otherwise crime of ‘misconduct’ is proved, beyond reasonable doubt. This is the facility of Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Chief Minister Jayalalitha during 1991 to 1996 took ` 1 per month as salary for 27 months and nothing for 33 months of remainder of CM’s term. Her income: ` 9,91,05,094.75, Expenditure ` 8,49,06,833.00 and wealth created is worth ` 55,79,08,215/-. That’s all the crime of disproportionate assets was proved and she is jailed, fined to pay ` 100 cr and ordered confiscation of ill-gotten wealth.

‘Heady Mix of power and Wealth is the bottom line of this case. Huge accumulation of wealth by accused in a short span of five years is a telling example of how power would lead to concentration of unlawful wealth posing veritable danger to democratic structure’, said the Special Judge John Michael D’Cunha.

Once a High Court judge has narrated about corrupt a judicial officer. He writes two judgments favouring each. After getting paid by both he places two papers before his favourite God, picks up handful of flowers, closes his eyes and throws them towards God. Then counts the flowers fell on papers; which ever gets more is pronounced and bribe is promptly returned to the other. This practice is hailed as democratic, justified and honest. It is democracy as number decides, justice as both get equal chance and honesty lies in paying back to party who lost. Litigants were very happy with this ‘reason’ in this ‘system’.

When I was working as reporter for a dailynewspaper in Warangal, I was told that one Superintending Engineer of Electricity Department celebrates birthday of himself, other members of his family, performs Satyanarayan Vrath or some such ‘day’, etc, just to collect worthy ‘gift’. People stood in queues to give him gifts with proper identification of giver, so that they can get good contracts or favours. He might have amassed lakhs worth wealth.

However popular a person may be, getting gifts worth ` 2.15 crore is highly uncommon and extra ordinary, which smacks of ‘bribery’ simply because the birthday of a Chief Minister is celebrated. To her bad luck her case was decided by a judge who does not believe in ‘flowers to God’ philosophy, but in rule of law. D’Cunha, the Judge who dislodged Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from seat of powerand lodged her in jail, has proved meticulously that Jayalalitha had received ` 2,15,00,012 by way of presents on her 44th Birthday. She has also derived large income from her agricultural properties and from the business run by her in partnership with other accused. This income was reported through IT returns. Prosecution examined 259 witnesses and 2341documents exhibited, while 99 defence witnesses. 384 exhibits/documents were considered. The Court looked into 3 court documents, 25 third party documents, 1606 saris, gold ornaments and other material objects to reach the conclusion. The value of 20548 grams of gold found in possession of A-1 Jayalalitha during the check period (1991-1996) is calculated as 20548 x ` 433 = ` 8,90,55,032 (Para 79.21). The value of the diamonds was ` 2,43,92,790. After gross weight of 7040 grams was deducted, the proportionate value of the diamonds came to `1,62,61,820.

In the wealth tax returns filed by her, she has categorically admitted that silverwares were received as gifts during the year. This declaration is consistent with the case of the prosecution that, the additional silverware amounting to 416 kgs was acquired by her during the check period. Jayalalitha, A1, has not produced any reliable evidence in proof of the source for acquisition of the silverware. It was inferred that 416 kgs of silver is her illegal acquisition (80.9).

Of two rates – ` 5000 or ` 6646 per kg of Silver, Judge adopted rate advantageous to accused and valued 416 kgs of silver at ` 20,80,000 (Para 80.10) In 304 bank accounts cash balance was ` 97.47 lakh and in 306 fixed deposits ` 3.42 crore, her vehicles valued at ` 1.3 crore, 389 pairs of footwear worth ` 2 lakh, 914 Silk Sarees worth ` 62 thousand, other sarees (61895) worth ` 27 thousand, old sares and other dresses (2140) ` 4.21 lakh, costly watches (7) ` 9.03 lakh, and 91 other watches of ` 6.9 lakh was held to be part of her illegal wealth. In addition there were 55 machines in Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., in Metal King, there were 19 machines are part of wealth of accused. Following is the calculation of value of wealth of accused.

Prosecution alleged that ` 6.45 crore was spent on marriage of VN Sudhakaran in 1995. Court rejected contention that bride’s family spent and concluded that she alone met marriage expenses as her cheques were issued to pay and all original documents, receipt and cheque leaves were recovered from her. It was concluded that the substantial part of the properties and pecuniary resources involved in the trial are acquired and held by A-2 to A-4 either in their individual names or in their capacity as the partner of the several firms and also in the name of six companies as benamidars to A-1. (Para 88.4)

Crucial paragraph of the conviction is:

“Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that as against the income of ` 9,91,05,094.75 and expenditure of ` 8,49,06,833.00 during the check period, A-1 acquired and possessed in her name and in the names of A-2 to A-4 and in the names of the business enterprises floated in their names immovable properties and pecuniary resources of the value of ` 55,79,08,215/- which she could not satisfactorily account, thereby rendering her liable for conviction u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. 13 (2) of P.C.Act.” (Para 40)

Prosecution has brought PWD Engineers to give evidence of valuation of her structures and buildings. Defence counsel argued that they are not ‘experts’ under Sec 45 of Evidence Act and unreliable. Two SC judgments have seriously affected Accused No.1. On is Lilly Thomas case where SC struck down as unconstitutional Section 8(4) of Representation of People Act 1951, which allowed Ministers and legislators to continue in office in spite of conviction if they appealed. This made disqualification to come into effect immediately after conviction that led her to lose the throne. Second SC judgment that gave great strength to special court in Bengaluru is Biswanath Bhattacharya vs. Union of India, AIR 2014 S.C. 1003 wherein, SC held, “If a subject acquires property by means which are not legally approved sovereign would be perfect & justified to deprive such persons of the enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public interest in ensuring the persons who cannot establish that they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such wealth.”