Quoting from the November 18, 2003 verdict of the apex court, he said: "They (political opponents) are watchdogs of the government in power. It will be their weapon to counter misdeeds and mischiefs of the government in power. They are the mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at large, if genuinely and unbiasedly projected."
The judge said the case was the outcome of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy's efforts, and added: "The very fact that private complaint was lodged by prosecution witness 232 (Swamy) has paved the way for registration of a case, culminating in the final report and prosecution of the accused, reinforces the plea that prosecution launched against the accused was not actuated by malice or political vendetta. This argument, therefore, is rejected."
The special judge also refused to accept Jayalalithaa's argument that the birthday gifts, both cash and in kind, amounting to2 crore in 1992 was a lawful income. "Receipt of birthday presents by themselves may not amount to windfall or immoral secretions. But in the present case Jayalalithaa claims to have received 2 crore in foreign remittance as presents and gifts, after she assumed the office of the CM. It creates serious doubts and suspicion about the character of the funds received by her."
Cunha also rejected the claim of agricultural income released by Jaya Publications, saying there was no evidence for farm activities or lease details pertaining to the land.
http://ift.tt/1jTsCkQ court Judge,John Michael Cunha,J Jayalalithaa,Disproportionate assets case
Stay updated on the go with The Times of India’s mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.
0 comments:
Post a Comment