Arithmetically challenged jurists? Glaring math errors in JJ verdict, say public prosecutor & Dr. Subramanian Swamy
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02136/jayalalitha_assets_2136932a.pdffull text of Conviction judgement of John Michael d'cunha of sept. 27, 2014 Mirror:
Acquital judgement of Justice Kumaraswamy, Karnataka HC: http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/02402/jayalalithaa_verdi_2402548a.pdf
In Pages 850 to 852, Justice K discusses a section titled: Loans as Income:
"PW.259 has positively stated in his evidence that accused Nos. 1 to 4 and firms and companies have borrowed huge loans. Even I have carefully examined the documents and it is found that evidence of PW.182 - Arunachalam reveals that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and firms and have borrowed Rs. 7,35,46,000/-. Besides, Accused have also borrowed loan from private parties. Those loans have not been taken into consideration. Ex.D 196 discloses that Indian Bank has granted loan of Rs. 84,07,172/-. The assessee advanced loan of Rs. 58,66,500/- The following are loans availed from Accused and firms and companies.
Accused No.3 - Rs. 29,98,500
J. Farm House - Rs. 6,00,000
Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., - Rs. 2,00,000
Sasi Enterprises - Rs. 2,00,000
Bharani Beach Resorts - Rs. 41,35,000
Lex Property Development
Pvt. Ltd., from Kalyani
Constructions - Rs.1,57,00,000
Indo Doha Company was advanced loan of Rs.1 Crore from
Magantha Investments.
PW.211 - PN Venkatesh speaks about Rs. 34 lakhs loan to Accused No. 4. PW. 160 speaks about grfant of loan of Rs. 1.50 crores sanctioned to Jaya Publications. PW.176 speaks about grant loan of Rs. 1.50 crores from Indian Bank to Tansi Enterprises. PW.182 also speaks about sanction of loan. However, I have considered the loan only borrowed by the Nationalized Banks."
Then, the Justice goes on to list the loan borrowed by the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and firms companies on Page 852.
It is clear from simple check of totals that the Justice has failed to mention that the total of Rs. 24,17,31,274 TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT includes loans borrowed from other agencies, that is non-nationalised banks and private sources. So, the Justice treats Rs. 18,17,46,000 (net of income deducting Rs. 5,99,85,274/-) as LOAN of Accused.
It is also clear that loan of the accused is a liabilty and NOT an asset.
How many private lenders will declare their loans as non-performing assets?
It is all a Kabuliwala game and the Jurists should go to school to refresher courses in arithmetic, particularly, addition, substraction and percentage computation to apply the PC Act fine reading and legal fine print explanations and elucidations of what 'disproportionate' means in computing assets of an accused.
So, it is education time. All CA's should become lawyers; all math teachers should hold refresher courses for those involved in juridical duties including judges and lawyers.
An alternative is to appoint CA's as judges and justices.
I went through John Michael d'Cunha Judgement. The judge does NOT deal with the fine distinction between an asset and a LOAN (total loan amount) and exclude loan(s) from asset computation to enforce the rule of law of percentages which will determine disproportionate nature of the asset beyond known sources of income. If all known sources of income are loans and hence liability, the case becomes ZERO asset to use the famous Sibal zero computation in 2G scam. What a pity that loan and asset, income and expense cause 18 years of delay in rendering justice. An elementary student versed in arithmetic will have figured this out in a jiffy. What a pity that arithmetic wizard kids are not called as Prosecution Witnesses (PW, not to be confused with abbreviation which refers to prisoners of war)
Education system is clearly flawed. Dharma education should become a mandatory requirement in all schools for all ages. Protection of dharma should be the duty of all citizens including the jurists and accountants specializing in kaalaadhan and corruption avenues.
One final note. Kaalaadhan means 'black money'. Since the money is black, not enough light can make the accounting wizardry presented in black ink readable or even intelligible for an aam admi with ordinary prudence which is the hallmark of justice system. What will a man or woman of ordinary prudence do in cases like this? This is the litmus test of justice. What is true, what is false? Who knows? Aha, advocates are there to charge Rs. 20 lakhs for a five minute appearance to argue a client's innocence. Justice system is in very sound financial footing. It is a profitable undertaking which keeps an entire armada of judicial system functionaries as an estate protecting Liberty and Freedom under the Rule of Law and against the vagaries of the State and State functionaries. Is the State fair? Who knows? Some claim democracy is a fair system which has checks and balances for a State. Who knows? Reams of paper can be produced, wasting forest wealth or bandwidth used up in the internet age. Dharma is a tough nut to crack. It is said to be cosmic order. Rest are all nimitta maatram. Now, see what has happened: justice review ends up in metaphysics.
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Centre
Sarasvati Research Centre
May 13, 2015
How the numbers don't add up in the Jayalalithaa case: Did the Karnataka High Court get its maths wrong?
The percentage of her disproportionate assets is 8.12%, the Karnataka High Court said in its order. Special prosecutor points to a glaring error as per which the actual figure is as high as 76.75%.
Fresh trouble seems to be brewing for All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam supremo and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, a day after the Karnataka High Court acquitted her of all charges in a 19-year-old Disproportionate Assets case.
A perusal of the order copy shows that Judge Kumaraswamy of the Karnataka High Court has made an error in calculation of the personal loans taken by her. In Page 852 of the order, the judge says Rs 24,17,31,274 is the total value of all the legitimate loans taken by Jayalalithaa and her co-accused, close confidante Sasikala and her relatives Sudhakaran and Elavarasi.
The amount, if you add up the above 10 entries, presuming these are all the loans considered by the court, totals Rs 10,67,31,274 and not Rs 24,17,31,274
The discrepancy comes to Rs 13,50,00,000. This means that the amount of loans taken by Jayalalithaa and her co-accused, which has been considered as legitimate by the Karnataka High Court, would now be less by Rs 13.5 crore.
This, in turn, takes the amount of disproportionate assets to Rs 16,32,36,812. The percentage of disproportionate assets held by Jayalalithaa and her co-accused now come to 76.75% as a result of doing the actual maths.
Breakdown of the assets and income
As per Karnataka High Court order dated May 11, 2015
As per Karnataka High Court order dated May 11, 2015
Total assets: Rs 37,59,02,466
Total income: Rs 34,76,65,654
Disproportionate assets as per order: Rs 2,82,36,812
Percentage of disproportionate assets: 8.12%
Total income: Rs 34,76,65,654
Disproportionate assets as per order: Rs 2,82,36,812
Percentage of disproportionate assets: 8.12%
[BUT]
Miscalculation of Rs 13,50,00,000
So now Disproportionate assets go up to Rs (2,82,36,812 + 13,50,00,000): Rs 16,32,36,812
Percentage of disproportionate assets increases to 76.75%
So now Disproportionate assets go up to Rs (2,82,36,812 + 13,50,00,000): Rs 16,32,36,812
Percentage of disproportionate assets increases to 76.75%
In its verdict on May 11, the Karnataka High Court had said
“The percentage of disproportionate assets is 8.12%. It is relatively small. In the instant case, the disproportionate asset is less than 10% and it is within permissible limit. Therefore, Accused are entitled for acquittal. When the principal Accused has been acquitted, the other Accused, who have played a lesser role are also entitled for acquittal.”
Special Public Prosecutor for the Karnataka High Court BV Acharya said that his team had caught onto this discrepancy earlier today. “We are looking into this issue,” he said. He refused to comment on whether the Karnataka government would appeal against this verdict in the Supreme Court.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam General Secretary Anbazhagan, who impleaded himself into the case in 2003, is likely to go on appeal in the Supreme Court on the basis of arithmetic errors.
“This is not merely a clerical or arithmetic error,” said A Saravanan, lawyer for the DMK. “This goes to the root of the matter. This whole case is based on tallying of accounts, it is what decides the case. This is a razor thin line. The High Court Judge has said that disproportionate assets below 10% is okay and he has held the proportion of disproportionate assets at 8.12%. He has given benefit of doubt to the accused. But this changes everything now,” he said.
Although remaining non-committal on appealing in SC, Saravanan said there is a high probability that they would go in for one.
Original complainant in Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate assets case, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy tweeted,
Swamy had, on May 11, told reporters that he would not appeal against the Karnataka High Court verdict.
Jayalalithaa’s counsel refused to comment on these developments. “I have not studied the judgement and therefore am not able to comment,” said B Kumar, defence counsel for Jayalalithaa.
Legal experts say that as per Section 362 of the Criminal Penal Code (CrPC), no court can alter or review its judgement or final order once signed, except to correct a clerical or arithmetic error.
The prosecution had already slammed the verdict on Monday, with Special Public Prosecutor BV Acharya saying that the prosecution had not been heard in this case. “The prosecution has been seriously prejudiced as we have not been given time to make oral arguments,” he said. “We were given only a day’s time to file written submissions. This has seriously prejudiced the case. The principles of natural justice have been violated in this case while the defence has been given two months to argue their case,” he said.
Other political leaders in Tamil Nadu too flayed the verdict with the Pattali Makkal Katchi’s Ramadoss issuing a statement saying, “I request the Karnataka government to file a petition in the Supreme Court against this verdict which is full of miscalculations. The verdict should be set aside until the appeal in the apex court is completed.”
DMK chief M Karunanidhi had stated yesterday that this was not the final verdict. “I would like to remind everyone that conscience is above all courts,” he said in a statement.