Jaya discharged in TANSI case

“…… there is no ground’ to frame any charge against the petitioner and as such the charge framed against her by the trial court has to be set aside and she has to be discharged,” Justice S Thangaraj, who discharged Jayalalitha from the TANSI case, observed.

The judge was allowing criminal revision petitions from Jayalalitha seeking to set aside the orders of the Special Court-III, rejecting her plea to discharge her from the case and framing charges against her.

Thejudge observed that the GOs (barring public servants from purchasing Government property) relied upon by the authorities could not be taken as a statutory prohibition or bar against the petitioner to purchase property in an auction held by the TANSI. The word certain property’ in Sec 169 IPC was not defined therein. The bar shown under the GOs could not operate as a statutory prohibition against the petitioner. Any breach alleged in respect of Code of Conduct imposed upon a public servant would not amount to an offence punishable under Sec 169 IPC, as the Code of Conduct was not a statute, the judge observed.

The fact remains that the property owned by TANSI was attempted for sale since 1985, but there were no bidders for a reasonable consideration. The petitioner became the chief minister in 1991 and once again, to raise more resources for the better functioning of the TANSI, the sale proposal was renewed. The properties were purchased by Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises, in which the petitioner wasa partner. The reason that the petitioner was a public servant and the property was purchased by the firms in which she was a partner, would be insufficient to frame the charges against her, unless the main ingredients were prima facie satisfied that the petitioner was liable for punishment for purchase of the properties. The petitioner, as CM, could be a partner in a firm and the same could not be questioned, the judge said.

Further, it could not be said that the petitioner was either entrusted with the property or dominion over the property as contemplated under Sec 405 IPC. There was no material to come to the conclusion that any trust had been created in respect of the property and the relationship between her and the TANSI was not one of a trustee and beneficiary. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s argument that there could not be any charge for an offence under Sec 409 IPC could not be brushed aside. The charge under Sec 409 IPC had not been made out, the judge said.

As regards certain sectionsof the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the judge pointed out that the property was purchased in a public auction. Hence, it could not be said that Jayalalitha did anything fraudulently or abused her position. The reasoning of the prosecution that she presided over the meeting at which the proposal to sell the property was renewed and that Jayalalitha and Nedunchezhiyan were the CM and Industries ministers at that point of time, were all remote circumstances which did not have a direct bearing with the charge.