Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) BV Acharya in the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) supremo and former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case has said that there are glaring errors in the Karnataka High Court judgment in calculation of loans.
The judge CR Kumaraswamy says that Jayalalithaa had received loans worth Rs 24 crore. But the actual figures come up to only Rs 10 crore, so there is a mistake of about Rs 14 crore, said Acharya.
According to Acharya Jayalalithaa’s total disproportionate assets (DA) is Rs 16.34 crore and not Rs 2.82 crore as the High Court judge said. The assets are 76% disproportionate and not just 8.12% as per HC, Acharya said.
BV Acharya, who actually built a very strong case against Jayalalithaa during his previous tenure as the Special Public Prosecutor said, “In page 852, judge says prosecution has not taken into account the income part of accused by obtaining loans from nationalised banks. Have given particulars of loans from different banks from which loans were rejected. The judge says total loans received are Rs 24 crore. There is some mistake in adding up. Actual figure comes to only Rs 10 crore. Thus there is a mistake to the extent of about Rs 14 crore. The DA will come to Rs 16.34 crore, as against Rs 2 crore. Therefore, there is a glaring arithmetical error in terms calculation.”
“Fundamental mistake is in totalling 10 items of the loan. Since this glaring mistake has come to my notice, I am considering all options available. If the Supreme Court appeal is decided, this will be an excellent point to prove that acquittal of Jaya is wrong,” he added.
When asked if he is asking for stay on the judgment, Acharya said, “It is a matter of deep consideration. I can’t say anything positive now.”
Acharya’s Page No 851 error?
In page number 851 of the judgement, the judge has mentioned about Rs 7.5 crore as loan availed by Jaya and another Rs 2.5 crore availed by Sasikala, but as a typo error, has not mentioned that Rs 10 crores and other small loan amounts in Page Number 852
So, the judge is correct on his part, but its Acharya, for his convenience, is not speaking about Page Number 851 and thereby confusing the public.