TTV’s sister, husband’s conviction upheld

Justice G Jayachandran, who confirmed the order of the Principal Special Court for CBI cases issued on August 26, 2008 said, “Merely declaring the income to the tax authorities belatedly or pointing out the source through someone else without accounting for the same with the appropriate authority will not make such source as a lawful source.” He further said, “In this case, what Baskaran has done is, after the search of his premises and seizure of evidence, he had filed I-T returns under block assessment, admitting the undisclosed income and has come forward to pay I-T. But on payment of tax, the liability for non-payment of tax gets absolved. But it does not purify the source of income if it is a tainted one. It is found that the said admitted undisclosed income of both exceeds far and above the known legitimate source.” Baskaran had joined as a clerk/coin, notes examiner (Grade II), in the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, on December 14, 1988. He married B Sreedaladevi, sister of TTV Dinakaran and Sasikala’s niece, on August 26, 1990.

The CBI registered a case on November 24, 1997 against them and conducted a search at various places on March 18, 1998 and on June 30, 1998. The search in the bank locker at TNSC bank, Santhome, led to the seizure of 80 gold bars. The CBI, in its final report, had submitted that Baskaran had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs 1. 68 crore, which stands in the name of his wife.

Also, at the end of the check period as on July 31, 1998 the couple had immovable properties worth Rs.87.96 lakh, while moveable properties worked out to Rs.2.28 crore. But before joining service, Baskaran disclosed his total assets to I-T as Rs.2.96 lakh.

The Special Court for CBI Cases which found the couple guilty under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, directed Baskaran to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for five years and pay a fine of Rs.20 lakh, while his wife was sentenced to three years RI and a fine of Rs.10 lakh, leading to the appeal at the High Court.

Justice Jayachandran in his order, also on holding that through documentary and ocular evidence of the prosecution, has proved the guilt of the accused to the core, said, “The investment in moveable and immoveable assets, cash, gold and silver articles seized during the search of the premises, by no stretch of imagination gives an impression that they were acquired through legal source.”