Date:13.05.

2015

To
1.Mr. K.Siddaramaiah
Honble Chief Minister of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore 560001

2.Mr. T.B. Jayachandra,

Honble Minister for Law, justice and human rights
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore 560001

3.The Chief Secretary,

State of Karnataka,
Bangalore,

4.The Secretary to Government,

Department of Law,
State of Karnataka,
Bangalore,

Date:

5.The Advocate General of Karnataka,

High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore,

6.Shri B. V. Acharya
Special Public Prosecutor
And Senior Advocate,
Former Advocate General of Karnataka,
Bangalore,

7. The Director/Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Special Investigation Cell,
Chennai-600 006,
Dear Sirs,
I introduce myself as the Founder leader of Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), a political
party which had positioned itself as a socio-democratic party in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. I
am writing this letter to bring to your notice some of the observations we have on the judgment
pronounced by Karnataka High Court in the Disproportionate Assets case of Ms. Jayalalithaa,
former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

Date:

At the outset I congratulate the Special Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.V Acharya, for his strong
commitment to the cause of truth and justice in this case. But for his hard work and excellent
presentation, the case might not have reached the stage of conviction and punishment in the
first instance itself. But all his efforts seems to have gone in vain on perusing the judgment
given by Karnataka High Court on 11-05-2015 on the appeal preferred by the accused. Just
by reading the judgment as a common man I could spot certain serious factual errors that have
seriously impacted the judgment itself.
I present the following facts for your perusal so that these could be taken into account
while examining the grounds for appeal against the verdict.
The details regarding this are available at page 852 of the said Judgment which states
that Jayalalithaa, Sudhakaran, Sasikala and Elavarasi and their firms had received ten loans
from Indian bank. The value of these loans respectively are Rs.1,50,00,000.00,
Rs.3,75,00,000.00, Rs. 90,00,000.00, Rs. 25,00,000.00, Rs. 12,46,000.00, Rs. 50,00,000.00, Rs.
25,00,000.00, Rs.1,57,00,000.00, Rs.1,65,00,000.00 and Rs. 17,85,274.00. This makes a total
of Rs. 10,67,31,274.00 (Rupees Ten crores sixty seven lakhs thirty one thousand and two hundred
and seventy four only). But Mr. Justice B.R Kumarasamy in his judgment has taken Rs.
24,17,31,274.00 (Rupees twenty four crores seventeen lakhs thirty one thousand and two
hundred and seventy four only) as the total value got as loans to be income of the accused.
That means a sum of Rs. 13, 50,00,000.00 (Rupees thirteen crores fifty lakhs only) has been
inadvertently added in the income that has led to total skewing of the judgment.
It is stated in the judgment that the total income of Jayalalithaa was Rs. 34, 76, 65,
654.00 (Rupees thirty four crores seventy six lakhs sixty five thousand six hundred and fifty
four only). If we deduct the Rs. 13.50 crores added inadvertently then Jayalalithaas income
would be Rs. 21,26,65,654.00 (Rupees twenty one crore twenty six lakhs sixty five thousand
six hundred and fifty four only). The assets of Jayalalithas as accepted by Justice Kumarasamy
himself is Rs. 37,59,02,466.00 (Rupees thirty seven crores fifty nine lakhs two thousand four
hundred and sixty six only). This will mean a difference of Rs. 16,32,36,812.00 (Sixteen crores

Date:

thirty two lakhs thirty six thousand eight hundred and twelve only) between the value of
assets purchased and the actual income which works out to 76.75%. But in the judgment it is
stated that the difference between the income and assets is only Rs. 2.82 crores, which is
8.12% above the income and could be ignored in view of the Krishnanand Agnihothri case
where it is stated that a difference of less than 10% between income and assets may be ignored.
The judgment also frivolously refers to a circular of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that up
to 20% of assets above the declared income may be ignored. Citing these two examples the
accused have been wrongly acquitted thereby causing severe miscarriage of justice which cannot
be countenanced.
As we have seen the difference between Jayalalithaas income and the assets purchased
is 76.75% above her income. Hence even if we take the guidelines of the Krishnanand Agnihothri
case (10%) or the AP Government circular (20%) as examples Jayalalithaa and her associates
cannot be acquitted from the case.
This is a very serious matter and particularly so being an extremely sensitive case. Under
the strength of this flawed judgment Ms. Jayalalithaa is hurriedly trying to assume the office of
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, it will cause incalculable injustice and harm to the people of
Tamil Nadu. It will also make a mockery of justice. Therefore I strongly believe that the Karnataka
Government should immediately initiate the appeal process and obtain stay of the order before
any further damage is done to the cause of justice.
We have a famous saying in Tamil: Needhi illaiyel amaidhi illai (without justice, no
peace). Justice is being sought to be massacred. Kindly, act immediately.
Thanking you,
Yours,

(Dr. S.Ramadoss)