Sasikala was allowed into Poes Garden for holding Jaya's assets: SC

The arrangement was neither for social living nor out of humanitarian considerations, says SC

Convicting V K Sasikala and her relatives on Tuesday, the Supreme Court cited several circumstantial evidence that established their roles in abetment and criminal conspiracy. 

One of the circumstances was them staying with the late chief minister J Jayalalithaa at her Poes Garden residence. The court said the arrangement was neither for social living nor out of humanitarian concern. “Although A2 to A4  (Sasikala, her nephew V N Sudhakaran and sister-in-law J Elavarasi) claims 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 A1  (Jayalalithaa) indicate that all the accused congregated in the house of A1 neither for social living nor A1 allowed them free accommodation out of humanitarian concern, rather the facts and circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly point out that A2 to A4 were accommodated in the house of A1 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by them to hold the assets of A1,” the judges said.

Among other circumstances cited in the judgment included Jayalalithaa executing a power of attorney in favour of Sasikala in respect of Jaya Publications. “ … A1 executed the said power of attorney knowing fully well that under the said powers, A2 would be dealing with her funds credited to her account in Jaya Publications.” Constitution of various firms during the period was another circumstance that established conspiracy between the parties. 

“It has come in evidence that 10 firms were constituted on a single day. In addition, A2 and A3 started independent concerns and apart from buying properties, no other business activity was undertaken by them,” the judgment said.  These firms were nothing but extensions of Namadhu MGR and Jaya Publications and they owed their existence to the benevolence of Jayalalithaa and Sasikala, it said. “The aforesaid firms and companies were operating from the residence of Jayalalithaa and it cannot be accepted that she was unaware of the same even though she feigned ignorance about the activities carried on by A2 to A4.”

The court also referred to a filing before the income tax authorities, where Jayalalithaa’s representatives had put forth an argument that Rs 1 crore was advanced by her to Sasi Enterprises towards share capital and further it was submitted that on the security of the said amount, loan was borrowed by A1, “and thus she cannot claim non-involvement with the firms”.

The flow of money from one account to the other proved there existed active conspiracy to launder the ill-gotten wealth of Jayalalithaa for purchasing properties in the names of the firms.