Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement

Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement


To be read together with the
Scientific Review of the John Michael D'Cunha Judgement
Original URL:
http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/service-rendered-to-a-constitutional-head-of-state----dr-j-jayalalitha-chief-minister-of-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-india/scientific-review-of-a-judgement
Short URL:
http://goo.gl/gklIgv


Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement
http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037
http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/59037/1/CRLA835-14-11-05-2015.pdf




Amma @ Her Excellency The Hon'ble Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu








Scientific Review:







Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement
Was it right to let the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy file a complaint?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053205866752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 17/919 & 18/919

Quote “2. The private complaint filed by the complainant- Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, Janatha Party,....

….The complainant above named states as follows:-

The Complainant is in active political life,...”

-------------------

The complainant is a President of a Political Party and also declares that he is in active political life

1. It is declared that this is a private complaint.

2. Has the complainant (Dr.Subramanian Swamy) provided ANY DECLARATION that the nature of the complaint against Selvi J. Jayalalitha

a. is of the nature of private only (private with reference to the complaint only) ?

b. does NOT arise due to any previous private bitterness between both of them ?

i. giving due significance to the fact that both Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Selvi J. Jayalalitha both are in active political life

c. does NOT provide any political benefit for the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy or does NOT cause any political disadvantage for Selvi J. Jayalalitha

3. Since both Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Selvi J. Jayalalitha are both in political life,

a. has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy attempted to resolve the concerns politically at the State Legislature and the Parliament?

b. has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy attempted to resolve the concerns at any other political forum?

c. If so, has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy provided a detailed report of all attempts to resolve the concerns attempted at multiple political forums, Assembly and Parliament?

d. has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy submitted any detailed report why these concerns have to be tried in a court of law, when the Legislature/Parliament is equally empowered as the Judiciary in the system of democracy followed in INDIA?

i. has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy declared that he has lost faith on the Legislature/Parliament and hence is attempting to complain to the Judiciary as he has lost faith on the Legislature/Parliament?

e. The Legislature/Parliament also can initiate proceedings when a Judge commits grave wrong and can impeach the Judge and remove the Judge from Office. When the Legislature/Parliament can have such authority over even the Judges, why should the complainant try to complain to the Judiciary?

i. Why did the Legislature/Parliament did NOT initiate proceedings against the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy for disrespecting the Legislature/Parliament by NOT letting the Legislature/Parliament handle the complaint and preferring it to the Judiciary?

ii. Did the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy arm-twist the Legislature/Parliament by forcing it to NOT initiate proceedings against him (Ref. e.1) ?

f. If all political leaders start complaining against each other in the Judiciary, will the Judiciary be able to attend to other cases?

g. Quoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/technology-must-be-brought-in-judiciary-to-bring-about-qualitative-changes-modi/ )

i. Are 5-star activists driving courts… look within: PM Modi to judges (Judges are chosen for divine work; they do what God has entrusted them with, says PM Modi).

ii. Calling upon the judiciary to have an internal mechanism for self-assessment and introspection, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday urged Chief Justice of India H L Dattu and other judges to reflect if “five-star activists” and “perception” were driving the judiciary today.

iii. Asking judiciary to introspect whether “five-star activists” were driving it, Modi said, “It is never too difficult to deliver justice within the boundaries of the law and Constitution. But it is very difficult to find the truth between perception and reality. It must be pondered over whether five-star activists are driving the judiciary today… if havoc is created to drive the judiciary. It has become difficult to deliver justice in an atmosphere of perception.”

iv. A judge is not completely insular today, the PM said. “A judge is worried over what is happening outside and thinks if a judgment should be delivered one way or the other. It is imperative to strengthen the hands of the judiciary. Be it people in the government or in the media or the issue of bail of five-star activists, we will cause trouble to ourselves if we don’t help strengthen the judiciary.”

v. Modi gave the example of an incident where, he said, a high court had to face severe electricity cuts perhaps because a “five-star activist” had got a restraint order from a court against erecting an electric pole.

vi. Seeking in-built checks, Modi noted that the judiciary was considered “divine” and next only to God. “If we as a government make mistakes, there is a forum for correction and that is you (judiciary). But if you commit mistakes, nothing will survive… It is time to evolve an in-built mechanism for self-assessment and introspection. Let a dynamic mechanism be developed without any interference of the government or any politician. If we don’t evolve such a system, the country will suffer in a big way in case the faith people have in this institution is shaken,” he said.

h. Read together with item (g) above, was it examined

i. whether the complainant had merit?

ii. whether the complaint had merit?

iii. whether the complaint was similar to the electric pole complaint in item (g.v)?

iv. whether any attempt was being made by the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy to derail any activity of progress in the State/Country by this complaint, similar to the act of forcing severe electricity cuts (item g.v)?

v. read together with item (g.iii), was it examined whether the complaint dealt with a perception or a reality?

vi. read together with item (g.iv), was the Judiciary arm-twisted or forced to accept the complaint by Dr. Subramanian Swamy?

1. was any effort made to ensure that the Judiciary was NOT arm-twisted NOR forced to accept the complaint by Dr. Subramanian Swamy?

vii. read together with item (g.vi), was any effort made to ensure that no mistake was even accidentally committed in accepting the complaint by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, with specific reference to the quote that “……….the judiciary was considered “divine” and next only to God. “If we as a government make mistakes, there is a forum for correction and that is you (judiciary). But if you commit mistakes, nothing will survive…….…”?

viii. read together with item (g.vi), was any effort made to ensure that the faith of the people on the Judiciary will NOT be shaken when accepting a complaint from Dr. Subramanian Swamy?

Was it right to let the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy file a complaint?




Back to Top of Page










Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy mocked at himself unknowingly due to a comedy of errors?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053228221752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 18/919

Quote "2. The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life. " End of Quote



The following concerns arise here

1. Consistent: Definition of consistent in English: adjective. Acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate: (Ref. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consistent)

2. Serious: Definition of serious in English: adjective. Demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application: (Ref. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/serious )

3. Eliminating: Definition of eliminate in English: verb. Completely remove or get rid of (something) (Ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/eliminate?q=eliminating )

4. Public Life: No exact match found for “public life” in British & World English (Ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=public+life )

5. The complainant claims that he has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life.

6. Rephrasing the same using authorized definitions, the same sentence would read as “The complainant claims that he has been taking a fair or accurate steady interest, also demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application of the fair or accurate steady interest in eliminating corruption from public life.

a. However, public life is NOT defined.

7. Hence, how can the complainant take a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from an undefined aspect of society?

8. Hence, is the complainant trying to trick the Judiciary into believing that the complainant has got a real and sincere motive to serve society by his consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption by using eloquent compulsive forceful language?

9. Further, has the complainant mocked at himself unknowingly without realizing that whatever may be his consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption, he cannot eliminate corruption from an undefined aspect of society?

10. Hence, is the complaint made by the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a comedy of Errors, as he seems to have an interest in eliminating corruption from undefined (implying non-existent) aspect/part of society???



Has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy mocked at himself unknowingly due to a comedy of errors?




Back to Top of Page





Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
If so, should the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy approached a Center for Psychiatric Health or should the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy approached the Judiciary? If the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy approached the Judiciary for reasons (as per his statement) of feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease due to insignificant causes and uncertain unprobable effects, did the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy furnish any Medical Fitness Certificate that indicated that his feeling or worry, nervousness or unease, due to insignificant causes and uncertain improbable effects is a fit case for the Judiciary and NOT a fit case for any Center for Psychiatric Health? If such a Medical Fitness Certificate has been submitted, did it indicate that the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy is in a clinically fit condition to complain to the Judiciary?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053232241752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037



Page 18/919

Quote… “2. The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life. Alarmed at the high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power for achieving the goal for accumulating wealth to the level of "Everest" that has been taking place in the state of Tamil Nadu, the complainant is taking all steps to curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is his home State of Tamil Nadu… End of Quote



The following concerns arise here:

1. The complainant states that he has been alarmed at the high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power……

2. Alarmed: Definition of alarm in English: noun. An anxious awareness of danger: (Ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alarm?q=alarmed#alarm__11 )

3. Rephrasing item 1 using the definition of alarmed in item 2 yields “The complainant states that he has been anxiously aware of the danger due to high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power…”

4. Anxious: Definition of anxious in English: adjective. Feeling or showing worry, nervousness, or unease about something with an uncertain outcome: (Ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anxious )

5. Rephrasing item 3 using the definition of anxious in item 4 yields “The complainant states that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease about the danger (with an uncertain outcome) due to high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power…”

6. Uncertain: Definition of uncertain in English: adjective. Not able to be relied on; not known or definite: (Ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/uncertain )

7. Rephrasing item 5 using the definition of uncertain in item 6 yields: “The complainant states that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease about the danger (with an outcome that is NOT able to be relied on, not known, nor definite) due to high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power”

8. Rephrasing item 7 for better readability: “The complainant states that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease about the danger with an outcome that is NOT able to be relied on, not known, nor definite (due to high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power)”

9. In item 8, high degree of corruption, misuse of power and abuse of power are abstract terms which have

a. Not been defined

b. Not been qualitatively Nor been quantitatively described

c. Decorative vocabulary value only

as supporting credentials have Not been supplied to indicate high degree of corruption, misuse of power and abuse of power.

10. Item 9 read together with item 8 indicates that, “The complainant states that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease about the danger with an outcome that is NOT able to be relied on, not known, nor definite due to undefined unsupported claim of high degree of corruption, undefined unsupported claim of misuse of power and undefined unsupported claim of abuse of power”

11. Rephrasing item 10 for better clarity:

a. “The complainant states that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease about

i. “an unknown danger”

1. that may not definitely happen

2. that may not also be relied upon to happen

ii. due to

1. undefined unsupported claim of high degree of corruption,

2. undefined unsupported claim of misuse of power and

3. undefined unsupported claim of abuse of power”

12. Item 12 indicates that the complainant by virtue of his own statement, states that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease about an unknown danger that may not definitely happen and that may not also be relied to happen due to some undefined unsupported claims of high degree of corruption, misuse of power and abuse of power

13. With reference to item 12, effect/danger is unknown, may not definitely happen and may not also be relied to happen

14. With reference to item 12, causes are undefined and unsupported claims of some happenings

15. Item 12, read together with items 13 and 14, why should the complainant state that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease

a. due to effects that are unknown,

b. due to effects that may not definitely happen

c. due to effects that may not also be relied to happen

which result from causes

d. that are undefined and unsupported claims of some happenings

16. Item 15 indicates that neither the cause nor the effect has got any significance

17. Item 15 read together with item 16 indicates that all that remains of the complainant statement is that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease due to insignificant causes and uncertain improbable effects

18. Item 17 indicates that all that remains of the complainant statement is that he has been feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease, the rest all being insignificant

19. Just for the simple reason that the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy feels or shows worry, nervousness or unease due to insignificant causes and uncertain improbable effects, the following questions arise

a. Is the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy attempting to announcing an impairment to his cognitive processes (cognitive process - (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents; "the process of thinking"; "the cognitive operation of remembering" Ref: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cognitive+process) as he has been stating that he feels or shows worry, nervousness or unease due to insignificant causes and uncertain unprobable effects?

b. If so, should the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy approached a Center for Psychiatric Health or should the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy approached the Judiciary?

i. If the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy approached the Judiciary for reasons (as per his statement) of feeling or showing worry, nervousness or unease due to insignificant causes and uncertain unprobable effects, did the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy furnish any Medical Fitness Certificate that indicated that his feeling or worry, nervousness or unease, due to insignificant causes and uncertain improbable effects is a fit case for the Judiciary and NOT a fit case for any Center for Psychiatric Health?

ii. If such a Medical Fitness Certificate has been submitted, did it indicate that the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy is in a clinically fit condition to complain to the Judiciary?




Back to Top of Page





Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy attempted to mislead the Judiciary and the authorities?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053234061752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 18/919

Quote… “2. The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life. Alarmed at the high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power for achieving the goal for accumulating wealth to the level of "Everest" that has been taking place in the state of Tamil Nadu, the complainant is taking all steps to curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is his home State of Tamil Nadu… End of Quote



The following concerns arise here:

1. How did the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy find out that the goal of high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power was accumulating wealth?

2. Was any analytical method used by the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy to find out that the goal of high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power was accumulating wealth?

3. The term “Everest” is NOT defined. Is it the same Mt. Everest, a mountain in the Himalayas or is it any other Everest?

4. Or is the “Everest” referred here is a different “Everest”? Or is it atleast given in the footnote that it is a different Everest?

5. How did the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy find out that the goal for accumulating wealth was planned to the level of “Everest”?

6. Did the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy obtain any evidence that indicated that the goal for accumulating wealth was planned to the level of “Everest”?

a. If the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy obtained any evidence that indicated that the goal for accumulating wealth was planned to the level of “Everest”, has he presented the same evidence when submitting the complaint?

i. If he has not submitted the evidence when submitting the complaint, was there any reason indicated for not submitting the evidence?

ii. If there was NO reason indicated for not submitting the evidence, did the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy have any hidden agenda for not indicating the reason for not submitting the evidence?

7. Assuming that the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy indicated Mt. Everest, a mountain in the Himalayas as the “Everest” in his complaint,

a. did he mean to say that wealth was attempted to be accumulated in geographical measure of land from Tamil Nadu upto Mt. Everest?

b. Or did he mean to say that wealth was attempted to be accumulated in a measure of height from the base of Mt. Everest upto the tallest point in Mt. Everest?

c. Or did he mean to say that wealth was attempted to be accumulated in a measure of weight?

i. If so, did he measure the weight of Mt. Everest? Did he present any evidence for having measured the weight of Mt. Everest?

ii. If he didn’t measure the weight of Mt. Everest, did he use any analytical tool to compute the weight of Mt. Everest? Did he present evidence for the same?

8. If the complainant has not provided any evidence for any concern discussed here, then how can the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy indicate that the process of achieving the goal for accumulating wealth was to the level of “Everest” through high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power?

9. When he has indicated in his complaint that “Alarmed at the high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power for achieving the goal for accumulating wealth to the level of "Everest" that has been taking place in the state of Tamil Nadu” with no evidence or analytics to support his claim, has the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy attempted to mislead the Judiciary and the authorities?



Back to Top of Page









Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Has Dr. Subramanian Swamy carefully orchestrated an act of filing a complaint with the Court, attempting to ride piggyback on the Court so that if anything goes wrong, he will NOT be held to blame?


https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053747551752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 18/919

Quote… “the complainant is taking all steps to curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is his home State of Tamil Nadu” … End of Quote



To be read together with a few lines at the beginning of the same paragraph so that meaning is established

Quote1… “The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life” … End of Quote1.



The above quote read together with quote1 indicates that the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy is taking all steps to curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is his home State of Tamil Nadu. Since the paragraph discusses about corruption, it can be inferred that the complainant should be talking about corruption.



Rephrasing the content of the above quote in a more concise way, the above quote indicates that the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy is taking all steps to curb corruption in his home state of Tamil Nadu.



The following concerns arise here:

The complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states or intends to state that he is taking all steps to curb corruption in his home state of Tamil Nadu.

1. However, has Dr. Subramanian Swamy listed out and discussed in detail all steps that he is taking to curb corruption?

2. Has Dr. Subramanian Swamy discussed in what capacity is he taking all steps to curb corruption?

3. If the Constitution of INDIA empowers Dr. Subramanian Swamy to take steps to curb corruption, has Dr. Subramanian Swamy enlisted or cited the appropriate sections from the Constitution of INDIA that empowers Dr. Subramanian Swamy to discharge these duties / tasks / assignments ?

4. With the understanding that Dr. Subramanian Swamy is a National Level Political Leader, has Dr. Subramanian Swamy substantiated or defended his particular interest in his home state of Tamil Nadu? If every National Level Political Leader concentrates only on his or her own home state in the Nation, then who will take care or concentrate on National Interests? Else, has Dr. Subramanian Swamy declared that he is only a State Level leader with no interest or concern on the Nation as a whole? If so, should the Election Commission take any step to declare Dr. Subramanian Swamy as a “State Level ONLY Political Leader”?

5. If Dr. Subramanian Swamy is taking all steps to curb corruption, then why should he file a complaint?

6. If Dr. Subramanian Swamy has preferred to file a complaint inspite of taking all steps to curb corruption, then has Dr. Subramanian Swamy declared that he has failed in his self-proclaimed consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption?

7. Has Dr. Subramanian Swamy declared where and how he failed in his self-proclaimed consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption?

8. Has Dr. Subramanian Swamy indicated how he expects to further his failed self-proclaimed consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption by filing a complaint with the Court?

9. How does Dr. Subramanian Swamy expect that the Court will succeed where he failed?

10. If so, Dr. Subramanian Swamy indicated that he has failed in his capacity of a Political Leader?

11. Will the Court take credit & the glory of success or will Dr. Subramanian Swamy take credit & the glory of success if (a) Dr. Subramanian Swamy declares that he is taking all steps to curb corruption and (b) then files a complaint in a Court and (c) if the Court investigates the complaint and (d) assuming that the Court finds merit and delivers judgement in favour of the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy?

12. Will the Court take the blame & disgrace or will Dr. Subramanian Swamy take the blame & disgrace of failure assuming that the Court investigates the complaint and finds that the complaint does NOT have merit but has only wasted the precious time and energy of the political leader against whom the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy has filed a complaint and also in the due course of the court proceedings also affected the quantum of good that the political leader (against whom Dr. Subramanian Swamy complained) could have done to the people in the time that the political leader has been dragged to court by the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy?

13. Rephrasing, has Dr. Subramanian Swamy being a National Level Political Leader and a Member of Parliament attempted to ride piggyback on the Court with a wilful motive that (a) if his complaint is proved right, he can take credit for the entire episode, while the actual work would have been done by the Court and (b) if is complaint is proved wrong, he can always come out of the episode without any political backlash (or political damage) to him and he can always say that the Court was unable to pin down the accused, though he filed a complaint? If so, does this speak highly of the acts and intentions and motives of Dr. Subramanian Swamy? If it does NOT, then why hasn’t Dr. Subramanian Swamy thought twice before preferring to file a complaint with the Court?



Has Dr. Subramanian Swamy carefully orchestrated an act of filing a complaint with the Court, attempting to ride piggyback on the Court so that if anything goes wrong, he will NOT be held to blame?






Back to Top of Page









Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Has Dr. Subramanian Swamy used the scientific principles of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in conjunction with Psychiatric Suggestion and Mind Control to force his opinion?


https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055071511752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 18/919

Quote… “The accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha has become the Chief Minister on 24.06.1991” … End of Quote



The above quote needs to be read together along with some definitions or meanings as given below:

Accused:

Meaning / Definition obtained from

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accused

“The generic name for the defendant in a criminal case. A person becomes accused within the meaning of a guarantee of Speedy Trial only at the point at which either formal indictment or information has been returned against him or her, or when he or she becomes subject to actual restraints on liberty imposed by arrest, whichever occurs first.”



Indictment:

Meaning / Definition obtained from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indictment

“a formal written statement framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense”



Indictment:

Meaning / Definition obtained from

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indictment

“a. A set of written criminal charges issued against a party, where a grand jury, under the guidance of a prosecutor, has found that sufficient evidence exists to justify trying the party for that crime.

b. The act or process of obtaining such charges.”

----



The complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that “The accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha has become the Chief Minister on 24.06.1991”.

Let us examine the meaning or definition of the word “accused”.

Accused:

Meaning / Definition obtained from

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accused

“The generic name for the defendant in a criminal case. A person becomes accused within the meaning of a guarantee of Speedy Trial only at the point at which either formal indictment or information has been returned against him or her, or when he or she becomes subject to actual restraints on liberty imposed by arrest, whichever occurs first.”



Reading together Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s statement along with the meaning of accused, then the following concerns arise here:

1. Even if Dr. Subramanian Swamy is complaining against Ms. J. Jayalalitha, she becomes an “accused” only at the point at which either formal indictment or information has been returned against her, or when she becomes subject to actual restraints on liberty imposed by arrest, whichever occurs first.

2. Read together with the meaning or definition of “indictment” given above, at the time of complaining, no formal indictment has been served on Ms. J. Jayalalitha by any court and she was not arrested then.

3. If so, when Ms. J. Jayalalitha was not technically an “accused”, why should Dr. Subramanian Swamy introduce the word “accused” to refer to Ms. J. Jayalalitha, even before she was technically an “accused”?

4. To understand this better, attention is called to a scientific concept called “Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP)” http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/01/16/nlp-10-ways-protect-mind-control/ combined with “Suggestion” & “Mind Control” (as in Psychiatry and other related Scientific disciplines) https://kundalini-meditation.com/content/7-most-effective-mind-control-techniques-you-should-be-aware

5. NLP, Suggestion and Mind Control principles applied to the usage of the word “accused” to describe Ms. J. Jayalalitha by the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy could possibly amount to attempting mind control and forcing his opinion on others.

6. The first court proceedings, though drawn out as a long process (for so many years) eventually culminated with the indictment of the defendant on Sept 27, 2014.

7. Reading together the above points, has Dr. Subramanian Swamy used the scientific principles of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in conjunction with Psychiatric Suggestion and Mind Control to force his opinion?






Back to Top of Page











Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Was there a conflict of interest, based on which Dr. Subramanian Swamy could NOT complain against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha? If there was a conflict of interest, then how did Dr. Subramanian Swamy file a complaint against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha? Reading together with Quote1, when Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that he is in active political life, does he NOT know the ramifications of filing a complaint when he shouldn’t have filed a complaint due to a conflict of interest?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055276091752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 18/919

Quote… “The accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha has become the Chief Minister on 24.06.1991. The whole of Tamil Nadu expected good and able administration, but their hope vanished since the accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha instead of governing the State for the welfare of the people at large.....” … End of Quote

---

The following concerns arise here:

1. The usage of the word “accused” has been discussed in https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055071511752

2. Further, the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy declares that the whole of Tamil Nadu expected good and able administration. It can be understood that Dr. Subramanian Swamy is indicating that the whole of Tamil Nadu expected good and able administration from the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha.

3. Now, how did Dr. Subramanian Swamy know that the whole of Tamil Nadu expected good and able administration from Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

4. Have people known to exhibit good and able administration from everyone elected?

5. Are NOT people aware of the credentials of the candidate and ability to provide good and able administration?

6. In spite of that, if the people of Tamil Nadu expected good and able administration from the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, the following questions arise:

7. Why did the people of Tamil Nadu expect good and able administration from the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

8. Did the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha exhibit such good and able administrative skills to such a high degree that the people themselves started taking note that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha is able to provide good and able administration?

9. If the people had hoped that Ms. J. Jayalalitha could possibly provide good and able administration, then it could possibly be a weak surmise.

10. However, when the people had expected that Ms. J. Jayalalitha would provide them good and able administration, then their expectation should have possibly found more rigid and strong roots based on previous good experiences regarding the good and able administrative skills of the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha

11. If the people had such an expectation that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha would provide them good and able expectation, and if Dr. Subramanian Swamy had known the expectation of the people then it does give rise to a few more concerns.

12. How did Dr. Subramanian Swamy come to know that the people expected good and able administration from the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

13. Did Dr. Subramanian Swamy perform any scientific study or research to ascertain the expectation of the people?

14. However, Dr. Subramanian Swamy has not stated that he had pursued any scientific study or research to ascertain the expectation of the people.

15. In such a case, the following quote needs to be revisited.



---



Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 17/919 & 18/919

Quote1 “ The private complaint filed by the complainant- Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, Janatha Party,....

….The complainant above named states as follows:-

The Complainant is in active political life,...” End of Quote1

---

16. It can be understood that Dr. Subramanian Swamy (at the time of his complaint) is a President of a National Level Political Party and is also in active political life.

17. Reading together the above points, the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy, then a President of a National Level Political Party and also in active political life has known (without performing any scientific study or research) that the people expected good and able administration from the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha.

18. In such a case, wouldn’t the expectation of the people from the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha would have been so good that it attracted the attention of the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy (himself a political leader and President of a National Level Political Party)?

19. Further, wouldn’t a conflict of interest arise if Dr. Subramanian Swamy prefers to be a complainant against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

20. If there was a conflict of interest, then how did Dr. Subramanian Swamy file a complaint against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

21. Reading together with Quote1, when Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that he is in active political life, does he NOT know the ramifications of filing a complaint when he shouldn’t have filed a complaint due to a conflict of interest?




Back to Top of Page







Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
So, did Dr. Subramanian Swamy, on multiple counts, used the scientific principles of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in conjunction with Psychiatric Suggestion and Mind Control to force his opinion and get the defendant convicted / imprisoned?


https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055381271752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 18/919

Quote… “The accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha has become the Chief Minister on 24.06.1991. The whole of Tamil Nadu expected good and able administration, but their hope vanished since the accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha instead of governing the State for the welfare of the people at large jointed in league with others and in particular her accomplice and partner in business Ms. Sasikala, have collaborated, colluded and conspired to amass wealth, both moveable and immovable in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as abroad using her position and power as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for which Ms. Sasikala functioned as an extra-constitutional authority.” … End of Quote

---



The following concerns arise here:

1. The usage of the word “accused” has been discussed in https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055071511752

2. Similar discussion would fit in for the following words & phrases from the above quote “accomplice, collaborated, colluded, conspired, amass wealth both moveable and immovable in State and abroad, using her position and power, extra-constitutional authority”

3. Usage of the word “accused” to define the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha has resulted in the following query being raised whether Dr. Subramanian Swamy used the scientific principles of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in conjunction with Psychiatric Suggestion and Mind Control to force his opinion and get the defendant convicted / imprisoned.

4. If usage of the words and phrases listed in item 2 above are also discussed, they would also possibly get more counts added to the query whether Dr. Subramanian Swamy used the scientific principles of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in conjunction with Psychiatric Suggestion and Mind Control to force his opinion and get the defendant convicted / imprisoned.

5. So, did Dr. Subramanian Swamy, on multiple counts, used the scientific principles of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in conjunction with Psychiatric Suggestion and Mind Control to force his opinion and get the defendant convicted / imprisoned?




Back to Top of Page











Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Have the complainants misled the Courts in INDIA to their own advantage? Similar to this, so many questions may arise on the minds of the people whether the complainants have exerted extra-constitutional Judicial authority without the Judiciary being aware of it by denying significant information to the Judiciary? Further similar questions also would arise whether the complainants were able to procure a desired verdict against the defendant as a conviction, without providing complete information to the Courts?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055510861752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

(1)

Page 25/919

Rajya Sabha unstarred question No.57 answered on 23.2.1993



(2)

Page 21/919

Complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that the Income Tax department issued notices under Section 143(3) of the IT act and Section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax act.

* Date of IT Dept. Notice not provided by complainant.



(3)

Page 30/919

Complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that for taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Public Servants, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, sanction of the Governor of Tamil Nadu is necessary. But since the accused ceased to be public servant, sanction of Governor is not necessary.



(4)

*Complaint date not provided in available Judgement copy. Hence extracted from link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionate_Asset_case_against_Jayalalithaa

Date of Complaint by Dr. Subramanian Swamy: 14.06.1996



(5)

Page 32/919

Date of FIR: 18.09.1996

FIR Complainant information: Thiru VC Perumal IPS, IG of Police, DVAC, Chennai



(6)

Page 33/919

Reasons for delay in reporting by the FIR Complainant: No delay



(7)

Page 19/919 and 20/919

The complainant (Dr. Subramanian Swamy) states that according to the evidence he has collected from various sources including through Parliament by putting question and getting authoritative answers from the Government, the accused person has committed the offence and is guilty and warrants prosecution

---

The following concerns arise here:

1. In item (7) above, the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that according to the evidence gathered, the accused person has committed the offence and is guilty and warrants prosecution.

2. Whether the content gathered amounts to be classified as evidence, whether the evidence collected amounts to be substantial and sufficient, whether the defendant has committed the offence, whether the defendant is guilty, whether the defendant should be prosecuted are ALL jurisdictional processes of the Courts.

3. Without giving any space for the Court to think, the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy has collected some content, analysed it himself, judged that the defendant has committed the crime and is guilty.

4. Doesn’t this act of the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy amount to exercise extra-constitutional authority over the functioning of the courts? If so, under what section or rule or process of the Constitution of INDIA is the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy exercising this extra-constitutional role of doing all the Judicial Processes and giving the Court his final conclusion, the only amusing concern being that after pronouncing his judgement of guilt on the defender, the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that it warrants prosecution? After the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy has performed the role of the Court and declared the defendant guilty of committing the crime, he wants the Court to prosecute the Defendant ?

5. In item 6 above, it is checked whether there has been any delay in reporting by the FIR Complainant Thiru VC Perumal IPS, IG of Police, DVAC Chennai

6. But, there is NOT found any item that checks whether there has been any delay in reporting by the Complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy?

7. Reading together items 1-7 referred above from the Judgement copy and elsewhere, there arises a considerable significant doubt regarding the time period between the Rajya Sabha unstarred questions answered in 1993 and the date of filing of the complaint by Dr. Subramanian Swamy

8. Calling attention to item 3 referred above from Judgement copy, Dr. Subramanian Swamy indicates that though the offence should have been committed during the tenure when the defendant was Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and though it required sanction of the Governor to prosecute the defendant, still it was not required at that time, coz the defendant ceased to be Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chief_Ministers_of_Tamil_Nadu indicates that the defendant was Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu upto 12.05.1996

10. Reading together the above points, the following concerns arise

11. Though Dr. Subramanian Swamy of his own accord stated that he knew things since the Rajya Sabha unstarred question No.57 answered on 23.2.1993 and though he knew that sanction of Governor was necessary to prosecute the defendant who was Chief Minister at that time 24.06.1991 to 12.05.1996, why did Dr. Subramanian Swamy NOT complain and obtain sanction of the Governor to prosecute the defendant?

12. Why was Dr. Subramanian Swamy waiting from 1993 to 1996?

13. If Dr. Subramanian Swamy was confident of his findings (which he even had the audacity of stating as if he himself was a Judge and calling the defendant guilty of committing the crime), why didn’t Dr. Subramanian Swamy obtain sanction of the Governor to prosecute the defendant in 1993 itself? Why did he have to wait until 1996?

14. If Dr. Subramanian Swamy waited until 1996 (from 1993), what was he doing in the meantime? Was he trying to obtain any unfair advantage by delayed reporting or complaining?

15. However it is also noted that, the complaint has been waited upon, and then filed when the defendant ceased to be Chief Minister and legal processes called for.

16. Again, later when the defendant becomes the Chief Minister again, on 28 February 2003 a motion is moved by Mr Anbazhagan (Secretary of the opposition DMK party, which was also the same party which ruled the State when the complaint by Dr. Subramanian Swamy was filed and acted upon, without Governor’s sanction as the defendant ceased to be Chie Minister) and the Court proceedings against the defendant is requested to be moved to another State and is also obliged upon by the Supreme Court.

17. Reading together the above points, there arises a serious doubt whether the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy and the DMK party Secretary and others had any unholy liaison among them?

18. If Dr. Subramanian Swamy waited from 1993 upto 1996 until the defendant ceased to be Chief Minister and initiated Court proceedings, then by the same yardstick, the court proceedings have to continue even when the defendant is Chief Minister. The same allowances given for the complainant to wait so many years to avoid Governor Sanction should have also been given to the defendant to continue the court proceedings even when she has become Chief Minister again. If the Supreme Court has transferred the case to another State, there arises a major doubt whether the complainants have furnished complete information to the Supreme Court? Or have the complainants misled the Courts in INDIA to their own advantage?

19. Similar to this, so many questions may arise on the minds of the people whether the complainants have exerted extra-constitutional Judicial authority without the Judiciary being aware of it by denying significant information to the Judiciary?

20. Further similar questions also would arise whether the complainants were able to procure a desired verdict against the defendant as a conviction, without providing complete information to the Courts?






Back to Top of Page








Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Was the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha framed? Further, as a fall-out of such doubts or questions arising, is the entire proceeding against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha going to be withdrawn? Or in spite of so many doubts or questions arising right from the stage of the complaint (and related events prior to it), is there still going to be an attempt to prove that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha is guilty of crime, when she could have been possibly framed?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153059148111752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 55/919 PW.76



read together with



Page 60/919

Quote... "On 7.9.1999, when he came to the Court as a witness police officers connected with this case Nallama Naidu and few others put pressure on him to tell as they told. During his chief-examination, they compelled him to tell the names of the accused whom were not connected with the case regarding the sale transaction, so he told" ...End of Quote



The following concerns arise here:

1. With reference to the above quotes, Prosecution Witness PW.76 indicates that he was compelled to provide witness as dictated by Police Officer Mr. Nallama Naidu and others

2. Attention is called to Additional References cited below

Additional Ref(1):

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article114129.ece

Jaya victim of frame-up

By C Shivakumar Published: 02nd May 2009 02:55 AM Last Updated: 15th May 2012 11:20 PM



Additional Ref(2):

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-allows-withdrawal-of-London-Hotel-case-against-Jayalalithaa/articleshow/4444633.cms

SC allows withdrawal of London Hotel case against Jayalalithaa

PTI | Apr 24, 2009, 05.47 PM IST
Read together doesn’t there arise serious doubts or questions regarding the quality of service rendered by Mr. Nallama Naidu and his team?
If a Defense witness turns hostile against the prosecuting team, it is understandable as the defense witness would be presented to support the defense team.
However, when a Prosecution Witness turns hostile against the prosecuting team, then doesn’t there arise more serious questions regarding the actual investigation, framing of charges and proceedings? Doesn’t it reflect to the benefit of the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?
Read together with previous scientific review comments on the same (posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement ), along with a related review ( also posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-a-judgement ), was the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha framed?
Further, as a fall-out of such doubts or questions arising, is the entire proceeding against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha going to be withdrawn?
Or in spite of so many doubts or questions arising right from the stage of the complaint (and related events prior to it), is there still going to be an attempt to prove that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha is guilty of crime, when she could have been possibly framed?




Back to Top of Page










Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Hence, should the complainants and others have requested that the quantum of charge of corruption that they levelled against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha be reduced suitably equivalent to the amount of mistakes they did in the complaint and in the assessments or if they have not requested, have they forgotten to request for it? Have the complainants and others made a mockery of the entire Judicial system by such flawed complaining and assessments?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153059503736752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 69/919

Quote ... "In hyderabad, they inspected four buildings. Among them, three buildings were constructed 15 years back. One building might have been constructed three months before the date of inspection. The assessment was not done by practical or scientific method. They did not ask the PWD Engineers of hyderabad for furnishing Andhra Pradesh PWD price list. They did not take out the marble stones from the construction site to decide the price. Regarding the marble stone, they have not taken any writing from the marble merchants. They have not seen the thickness of the marble. They have not asked the expenses of doors from anybody" ... End of Quote

---

The following concerns arise here (to be read together with previous scientific review comments on the same, posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement ):

1. “The assessment was not done by practical or scientific method” – So did they do the assessment by non-practical method or non-scientific method? If so how was the assessment reliable?

2. “They did not ask the PWD Engineers of hyderabad for furnishing Andhra Pradesh PWD price list” – So, instead of asking the PWD Engineers of Hyderabad for furnishing Andhra Pradesh PWD price list for examining property in hyderabad, whom did they ask? Or did they examine without a price list? If so, how was the assessment reliable?

3. “They did not take out the marble stones from the construction site to decide the price” -- If so, how was the assessment reliable?

4. “Regarding the marble stone, they have not taken any writing from the marble merchants” -- If so, how was the assessment reliable?

5. “They have not asked the expenses of doors from anybody” -- If so, how was the assessment reliable?

6. On top of it, they wanted the defendant to be convicted for committing corruption while in public office?

7. With so many errors in assessment noted, how many more errors in assessment could have been there which was not noted?

8. Based on such a questionable assessment, how were they able to establish that corruption has been done?

9. Or did they plead as in the Tamil Movie “Thiruvilayaadal”, on a similar count (Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zztzKqHb66c from time 49:22 – English subtitles will help to understand and relate to this assessment better) ???

10. They have complained against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha that she had committed corruption while in public office…

11. And inspected and did such wonderful assessments, that it wouldn’t have even been necessary to inspect in real, while there could have been a possibility that they could have also attempted such an impractical and non-scientific assessment even by dreaming, instead of wasting precious energy and time to go there and do an impractical and non-scientific assessment??

12. When they have done such impractical and non-scientific assessment and recorded it, wont that be speaking volumes about the rest of their assessment?

13. So, as it happened in the movie Thiruvilayaadal, are they going to plead that they have prepared a complaint, filed it and also pursued it.. but some mistakes have been found out… so reduce the quantum of the charge levelled against the defendant equal to the number of mistakes, and judge the defendant based on the number of correct assessments done by them? (Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zztzKqHb66c from time 49:22 – English subtitles will help to understand and relate to this assessment better)

14. Hence, should the complainants and others have requested that the quantum of charge of corruption that they levelled against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha be reduced suitably equivalent to the amount of mistakes they did in the complaint and in the assessments or if they have not requested, have they forgotten to request for it?

15. Have the complainants and others made a mockery of the entire Judicial system by such flawed complaining and assessments?



Back to Top of Page










Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Have the complainants and others tried very hard to build a case of corruption against the defendant when no case of corruption actually existed? Didn’t they realise that such questions might arise in the mind of the people at a later date? Or were the complainants and others so much engrossed in attempting to build up a case of corruption (when no case existed) against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, that they forgot that time might unravel their grossly unjust attempt in trying to build up a case of corruption (when no case existed)?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153059587796752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 69/919 & 70/919

Quote ... " PW-98 was recalled and re-examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and questions were posed as under:

In chief-examination, he has stated that the building covered by Ex.P.641 was constructed 5 to 6 years back. Among the two versions, which version is correct?

What he has stated in examination-in-chief is correct.

In chief-examination building covered by Ex.P.643 construction work was done during 1995-96. But in the cross-examination, construction work would have been commenced three months earlier to 28.10.1996. Among two versions, which version is correct?

What he has stated in examination-in-chief is correct.

Referring to Ex.P.644, the witness has stated that the building constructed during 1994-1995. But in the cross-examination, he has deposed that the construction would have been commenced three months prior to date of inspection. Among two versions, which version is correct?

What he has stated in examination-in-chief is correct.

Referring to Ex.P.645, he has deposed that building was built in the year 1995-96 and 1994-95. But in the cross-examination, he has deposed that three buildings were constructed 15 years back. One building is new. The building might have construction before three months. Among these two versions, which version is correct?

What he has stated in examination-in-chief is correct.

" ... End of Quote

---

The following concerns arise here (to be read together with previous scientific review comments on the same, posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement ):

1. Instead of suspecting foulplay and cancelling out these items from the complaint, why was the learned Special Public Prosecutor asking such type of questions?

2. For instance, in election, if two candidates are present and if a voter has voted for both candidates, then isn’t that vote cancelled out or rejected?

3. In such a case, shouldn’t the witness and the item be cancelled out or rejected from the complaint?

4. Instead, the SPP is found to be asking the witness again, which option to choose, coz the witness has given two options.

5. The witness for the third time, asks that one option be chosen and the SPP is choosing the option.

6. Isnt it a mockery of the examination process?

7. Instead of this, why couldn’t the SPP toss a 1 rupee coin and choose the option based on the side of the coin that turns up or lands on?

8. Or better, why couldn’t the SPP choose and record answers that he wanted to record, so that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha can be implicated and pronounced guilty?

9. Or was the SPP worried that if a proper examination was carried out, all items in the complaint might get cancelled out or rejected and all that would remain would be an unsubstantiated and unsupported complaint of corruption against the defendant and defendant might get acquitted as the complaint may have to be treated as trivial with no substance?

10. So, did the SPP carry out an examination, so as to call back a witness who had chosen both options and then again ask him which option he wants to choose again, instead of cancelling out both the witness and the item from the list of corruption allegations, in such a way only to find some way of implicating the defendant?

11. Was the SPP trying very hard to implicate the defendant on charges of corruption when no corruption was done?

12. Was the SPP making a mockery of the entire witness examination process?

13. In short, have the complainants and others tried very hard to build a case of corruption against the defendant when no case of corruption actually existed?

14. Didn’t they realise that such questions might arise in the mind of the people at a later date?

15. Or were the complainants and others so much engrossed in attempting to build up a case of corruption (when no case existed) against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, that they forgot that time might unravel their grossly unjust attempt in trying to build up a case of corruption (when no case existed)?



Back to Top of Page








Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
However, when the process is trivial and nonsystematic, with no or negligible probability of repeating the process, then certainly the output CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. In such a case, all charges of corruption against the defendant will NULLIFY themselves and the defendant will have to be NOT ONLY Acquitted but absolved of all allegations of corruption and let to walk free. On top of it, if the complainants and others were able to press charges of corruption on the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha and still implicate her, doesn’t it raise very big questions on how were they able to do it? Wont the future record that grave injustice has been done to Ms. J. Jayalalitha by framing her on corruption charges, based on such trivial information?


https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153059641436752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 76/919 & 77/919

Quote ... "Cost of the electrical goods was fixed at Rs.1,70,000/-. Cost of electrical items was checked with shops through telephone. He has not mentioned in his report. He does not know where the Electrical Engineers checked the prices of these items. There is no starting rate for the ruby redstones fixed at the Entrance, nor is there for the ornamental tiles. He states ruby red black stones were checked at RedSun and Gem Granite Company. He does not remember the dates. He does not know with whom he checked the price with. He fixed Rs. 15,884/- for the ruby black granites, Rs.23,880/- for ornamental tiles and Rs.2,83,452/- for Entrance door. Valuation of the door frames is Rs.59,210/-. There is no schedule rate for the ornamental door. He has not taken down the rates quoted by Arya Bhangy Company of ornamental doors. There is no schedule rate for brass bolts. He checked with Sabari Hardwares. He has taken down the rates they have quoted. He does not remember the date of enquiry. There is no schedule rate for high-quality porcelain tiles. Value of brass bolts is Rs.24,890/-. Value of porcelain tiles is Rs.48,427/-. There is no schedule rate for paints used inside and outside the building. The names of hardware shops cannot be specified. There is no schedule rates for Dolpur stones. There is no schedule rates for skilled labour. There is no schedule rate for grill gates. He valued the grill gates at Rs.20,102/-. There is no standard rate for landscaped lawn. He does not remember with whom he checked the rates for calculating the value of lawns. It was done orally. He has taken down. He does not have the paper. He tore it after mentioning the rates in the valuation report. Value fixed at Rs. 20.43 lakh includes lawn. Rs. 16,800 was fixed for footpath with broken marbles. Service charge was fixed at Rs.1,68,675/-" ...End of Quote.

---

The following concerns arise here (to be read together with previous scientific review comments on the same, posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement ):

1. “ Cost of the electrical goods was fixed at Rs.1,70,000/-. Cost of electrical items was checked with shops through telephone” – Was this such an accurate assessment to prove guilt of corruption on the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

2. “ He does not know where the Electrical Engineers checked the prices of these items.” – And they relied on the assessment instead of cancelling out the item and the witness from the list of items where corruption is alleged to have been done?

3. “He does not remember the dates. He does not know with whom he checked the price with.” – And they relied on the assessment instead of cancelling out the item and the witness from the list of items where corruption is alleged to have been done?

4. “He does not remember with whom he checked the rates for calculating the value of lawns. It was done orally. He has taken down. He does not have the paper. He tore it after mentioning the rates in the valuation report.” – And they relied on the assessment instead of cancelling out the item and the witness from the list of items where corruption is alleged to have been done?

5. No systematic methods used. No benchmarks used for comparison. No actual measurements done. Assessor does NOT have any record. But still the amounts indicated in Rupees are so high. Were the amounts in Rupees fixed randomly?

6. Only when the process is systematic, can the output of the process can be expected to be systematic, though with some allowable tolerance of error, omission and commission.

7. However, when the process is trivial and nonsystematic, with no or negligible probability of repeating the process, then certainly the output CANNOT BE RELIED UPON.

8. In such a case, all charges of corruption against the defendant will NULLIFY themselves and the defendant will have to be NOT ONLY Acquitted but absolved of all allegations of corruption and let to walk free.

9. On top of it, if the complainants and others were able to press charges of corruption on the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha and still implicate her, doesn’t it raise very big questions on how were they able to do it?

10. Wont the future record that grave injustice has been done to Ms. J. Jayalalitha by framing her on corruption charges, based on such trivial information?



Back to Top of Page






Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Were the complainants and others so determined that they should get the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha implicated on an allegation or charge of corruption in public office that they presented invalid items as evidence? Was any malpractice done by the complainants and others in attempting to implicate the defendant on charges of corruption when no corruption had actual taken place? If so, how were they able to do the malpractice? So, who should have been prosecuted – the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha or the complainants and others???

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153060383156752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 79/919

Quote ... "He took the photographs. There is no evidence to show that the photographs are that of Poes Garden." End of Quote

---

The following concerns arise here (to be read together with previous scientific review comments on the same, posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement ):

1. Quote ... "He took the photographs. There is no evidence to show that the photographs are that of Poes Garden." End of Quote

2. So, where were the photographs taken?

3. Were the photographs forged?

4. Were the photographs altered using software?

5. When the allegation is so severe as in alleged to have committed corruption as head of state, shouldn’t the evidence be exact and accurate?

6. When Photos are taken and presented with NO evidence that they are relevant, then how can guilt of corruption can be established?

7. Have the complainants and others lost sight of such a simple truth that without evidence, no item can be accepted as valid?

8. Were the complainants and others so determined that they should get the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha implicated on an allegation or charge of corruption in public office that they presented invalid items as evidence?

9. Was any malpractice done by the complainants and others in attempting to implicate the defendant on charges of corruption when no corruption had actual taken place?

10. If so, how were they able to do the malpractice?

11. So, who should have been prosecuted – the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha or the complainants and others???




Back to Top of Page







Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Was it their assumption that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha was guilty of corruption while in public office ??? Did they complain, file a case and also conduct court proceedings based on their assumption that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha was guilty of corruption while in public office??? Were the Police Officers forced to take stands that they should NOT have taken in their line of duty? Were the Police Officers harassed? Were the Police officers forced to cooperate with the complainants and others in attempting to frame the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha on charges of corruption while in public office? Why are many important things hidden? Was it beneficial to the defendant? Was it destroyed? Was there a criminal conspiracy to collude, set-up and frame the defendant on charges of corruption while the defendant had NOT committed any corruption?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153060784181752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037



Pages 80/919 to 83/919

Quote ... "The value of five-storeyed building is Rs.2,33,50,000/-. He noted down the rates they have quoted. Later on, he tore the same.......... He asked Muruganandam, Horticultural Expert, who was working as a Contractor in Public Works Department. He noted the rates quoted and he tored the notes preparing after preparing the report. Otis lift is valued at Rs.7,70,000/-. He does NOT know the year of manufacture of that lift. He checked up the rates with Spencers. He noted down the rates and torn the papers....... He prepared building plan. Building plan was not enclosed with Ex.P.666. Schedule rates of the Department was not attached to Ex.P.666. He has not made any test to know the quality of marbles and granites. In Ex.P.666, it is not mentioned that enquiry was made with the Forest Department for assessing the value of wooden structure. Ex.P.666 does not mention the number of bathrooms, length, breadth and height where the porcelain tiles were fixed, measurement of the area painted, length, breadth and height of Dolpur tiles fixed on the compound wall, length, breadth, height and weight of gate. He has not consulted the Horticulture Expert to fix the value of lawns. The value of lawns was fixed on assumption. Rs.3,347/- is fixed for sq. meters as the value of marble stones. They have not attached the source of price of valuation of wardrobes. Building owner or his representative was not present at the time of evaluation of Ex.P.667. They have not enclosed the details of length, breadth, height of building, area of ground floor and first floor in Ex.P.667. They have not seen the sanction plan of the building. The model building plan prepared by them for the measurements was not attached to Ex.P.667. Ex.P.667 does not mention the length, height, weight of the brickwall. Quality of the brickwall is also not mentioned. The report does not mention the length, breadth and height of the concrete structures. Valuation was prepared according to the schedule rates of their Department. Length and breadth of the iron beam is not mentioned in the report. The sq. meter rate is fixed according to the schedule rate of their Department. The iron rods weighed about 500 quintals. The value for the piled up marble slabs was done after taking measurements and countim them separately. They have not seen the sanctioned plan. They have not enclosed the building plan along with Ex.P.668. They have not enclosed the schedule rate of their Department along with Exs.P.666 and 672. They did not seek the opinion of the Forest Department Officials to ascertain the nature and quality of wood. Measurements of frame structure, load bearing structures were not mentioned in Ex.P.668. Construction materials used for building No.1 were not classified before valuation. The weight and rate of the crystal rods were fixed according to their own calculation. Ex.P.669 does not mention the structure of the ornamental tiles. They have estimated by them to the expensive marble slabs just by looking at them. They have not separate mentioned the measurements of the places were marble slabs are used. Porcelain fittings used for bathrooms were assesed on assumption. Broken piece marble cannot be valued. Construction materials and fixed ratios are evaluated according to the rates followed in their Department. Rates were also fixed according to their calculation. Pipes used for drinking water and sewage water and their value is fixed according to their Department rates. The report does not mention separately where the marble structures are found. The length, height and weight of the grill gates are not separately given in the report. The report does not say the kind of decorative work found on the compound wall. The length and breadth of security room is not given in the report. Though they have prepared a note before inspecting all the buildings and handed over to the Police officers, none of them is produced before the Court. All of the four groups took minutes separately, but none of them were included in Ex.P.671. Owner of the building was not present when Ex.P.671 was drawn. The schedule rate of the Department was not enclosed alogn with Ex.P.671. Some of the old structures were intact. Details about renovation of old building is not given in Ex.P.667. The maps enclosed along with Ex.P.671 are all copies. The plan does not show the name of the person who prepared it. None of the building plans are attached to Ex.P.672. They have not consulted the specialist in the field of brass materials while valuing them. Value of the materials found in the structures of five-storeyed building was fixed based on the schedule rate of their Department on enquiries made outside. Their inspection was based on outside observation and not based on any specific test or proof. Value of the iron used for all the items of structures was fixed based on the schedule rates.".......End of Quote.

---

The following concerns arise:

1. Have the complainants and others forgotten that they have alleged that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha is guilty of corruption done while in public office. In such a case, the onus is on the complainants and others to prove that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha is guilty of corruption by virtue of strong evidence of crime committed?

2. The manner in which the investigations have been done, taking care only to inflate the value of the assets without bothering to provide proof of analysis, raises very big questions whether the defendant is NOT guilty of any corruption but has been framed or set-up as guilty of corruption.

3. The following instances extracted from quote above will help to think and rationalize regarding the merit of the evidence submitted against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha.

4. "The value of five-storeyed building is Rs.2,33,50,000/-. He noted down the rates they have quoted. Later on, he tore the same" -- Why did he tear it down? Was the calculation wrong? Did he want to hide it from the Court? If working or analysis is not submitted, then how to trust that the indicated value is correct? In the absence of any calculation shown, the indicated value can also possibly be a fascination of the person assessing it? Or was he destroying evidence which could have benefitted the defendant? Was he misleading the Court? Was he making a mockery of the Judicial system?

5. "Otis lift is valued at Rs.7,70,000/-. He does NOT know the year of manufacture of that lift. He checked up the rates with Spencers. He noted down the rates and torn the papers" -- So, all Otis lift, irrespective of year is valued at Rs.7,70,000/-? Is Spencers the sole authority on the planet to value Otis lift? Again why did he note down and tear it? Same argument as above arises here also...

6. "He prepared building plan. Building plan was not enclosed with Ex.P.666" -- Then for what did he prepare building plan? Did he NOT enclose the building plan, coz it might have been beneficial to the defendant? Same argument as above arises here also...

7. "Schedule rates of the Department was not attached to Ex.P.666" -- Is the Department rate the only sole benchmark rate to assess? Is the Department rate so standardized? Is the Department rate the only rate on the planet to assess? On top of it, why was the Schedule rates of the Department not attached to Ex.P.666? Was it beneficial to the defendant? Same argument as above arises here also...

8. "He has not made any test to know the quality of marbles and granites." -- If so how did he know the quality of marbles and granites? Did he affix any random value as value of the marbles and granites? With such random values, did they expect to prove that the Defendant was guilty of corruption while in public office?

9. "In Ex.P.666, it is not mentioned that enquiry was made with the Forest Department for assessing the value of wooden structure." -- Then how did he assess the value of wooden structure? Did he fix any random value as value of the wooden structure? With such random values, did they expect to prove that the Defendant was guilty of corruption while in public office?

10. "Ex.P.666 does not mention the number of bathrooms, length, breadth and height where the porcelain tiles were fixed, measurement of the area painted, length, breadth and height of Dolpur tiles fixed on the compound wall, length, breadth, height and weight of gate." -- Then how did he assess? Was this also a random value? With such random values, did they expect to prove that the Defendant was guilty of corruption while in public office?

11. "He has not consulted the Horticulture Expert to fix the value of lawns. The value of lawns was fixed on assumption" -- On similar lines, was it their assumption that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha was guilty of corruption while in public office ??? Did they complain, file a case and also conduct court proceedings based on their assumption that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha was guilty of corruption while in public office???

12. "They have not enclosed the details of length, breadth, height of building, area of ground floor and first floor in Ex.P.667." -- Why did they hide it? Was the calculation wrong? Did they want to hide it from the Court? If working or analysis is not submitted, then how to trust that the indicated value is correct? In the absence of any calculation shown, the indicated value can also possibly be a fascination of the person assessing it? Or were they destroying evidence which could have benefitted the defendant? Were they misleading the Court? Were they making a mockery of the Judicial system?

13. "They have not seen the sanction plan of the building. The model building plan prepared by them for the measurements was not attached to Ex.P.667. Ex.P.667 does not mention the length, height, weight of the brickwall. Quality of the brickwall is also not mentioned. The report does not mention the length, breadth and height of the concrete structures." -- Then how they assess? Was their assessment a dream or a fascination?

14. "Valuation was prepared according to the schedule rates of their Department." -- Is the Department rate the only sole benchmark rate to assess? Is the Department rate so standardized? Is the Department rate the only rate on the planet to assess?

15. "Length and breadth of the iron beam is not mentioned in the report. The sq. meter rate is fixed according to the schedule rate of their Department. The iron rods weighed about 500 quintals" -- Then how did they assess? Was their assessment a dream or a fascination?

16. "They did not seek the opinion of the Forest Department Officials to ascertain the nature and quality of wood." -- Then how did they assess? Was their assessment a dream or a fascination?

17. "Measurements of frame structure, load bearing structures were not mentioned in Ex.P.668." -- Why was it hidden? Or were they destroying evidence which could have benefitted the defendant? Were they misleading the Court? Were they making a mockery of the Judicial system?

18. "Construction materials used for building No.1 were not classified before valuation." -- Then how did they assess? Was their assessment a dream or a fascination?

19. "The weight and rate of the crystal rods were fixed according to their own calculation." -- Why? How? Are they living legends, universally accepted by all that whatever they calculate is accurate? Were they misleading the Court? Were they making a mockery of the Judicial system?

20. "Ex.P.669 does not mention the structure of the ornamental tiles. They have estimated by them to the expensive marble slabs just by looking at them." -- Why? How? Are they living legends, universally accepted by all that whatever they see and observe and calculate is accurate? Were they misleading the Court? Were they making a mockery of the Judicial system?

21. "Porcelain fittings used for bathrooms were assesed on assumption." -- Based on assumption, they are expecting to prove an allegation of corruption in public office against the defendant? Are they living legends, universally accepted by all that whatever they see and observe and calculate is accurate? Were they misleading the Court? Were they making a mockery of the Judicial system? So, was their allegation of corruption against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha also an assumption of theirs?

22. "Porcelain fittings used for bathrooms were assesed on assumption. Broken piece marble cannot be valued. Construction materials and fixed ratios are evaluated according to the rates followed in their Department. Rates were also fixed according to their calculation. Pipes used for drinking water and sewage water and their value is fixed according to their Department rates. The report does not mention separately where the marble structures are found. The length, height and weight of the grill gates are not separately given in the report. The report does not say the kind of decorative work found on the compound wall. The length and breadth of security room is not given in the report. " -- With such non-standard assessment are they trying to prove and fix guilt of corruption on the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

23. "Though they have prepared a note before inspecting all the buildings and handed over to the Police officers, none of them is produced before the Court. " -- How did this happen? Were the Police Officers forced to take stands that they should NOT have taken in their line of duty? Were the Police Officers harassed? Were the Police officers forced to cooperate with the complainants and others in attempting to frame the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha on charges of corruption while in public office?

24. "All of the four groups took minutes separately, but none of them were included in Ex.P.671." -- Why are many important things hidden? Was it beneficial to the defendant? Was it destroyed? Was there a criminal conspiracy to collude, set-up and frame the defendant on charges of corruption while the defendant had NOT committed any corruption?

25. "The plan does not show the name of the person who prepared it." -- Was it a forgery plan, as all plans show the name of the person who prepared it? Was there a criminal conspiracy to collude, set-up and frame the defendant on charges of corruption while the defendant had NOT committed any corruption?

26. "They have not consulted the specialist in the field of brass materials while valuing them." -- If so how did they know the quality of brass materials? Did they affix any random value as value of the brass materials? With such random values, did they expect to prove that the Defendant was guilty of corruption while in public office?

27. "Their inspection was based on outside observation and not based on any specific test or proof." -- Did they affix any random value as value? With such random values, did they expect to prove that the Defendant was guilty of corruption while in public office?

28. Hence, was it their assumption that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha was guilty of corruption while in public office ??? Did they complain, file a case and also conduct court proceedings based on their assumption that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha was guilty of corruption while in public office??? Were the Police Officers forced to take stands that they should NOT have taken in their line of duty? Were the Police Officers harassed? Were the Police officers forced to cooperate with the complainants and others in attempting to frame the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha on charges of corruption while in public office? Why are many important things hidden? Was it beneficial to the defendant? Was it destroyed? Was there a criminal conspiracy to collude, set-up and frame the defendant on charges of corruption while the defendant had NOT committed any corruption?



Back to Top of Page









Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
What was the confusion regarding the jewels? Were they attempting any strange thing with the jewels? A doubt arises whether they were attempting to fabricate evidence against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha using him? Doesnt the doubt of fabrication of evidence against the defendant grow stronger and stronger? If so, was only this evidence alone fabricated against the defendant so that she can be implicated and convicted or was more such evidences attempted to be fabricated so that the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha can be surely expected to be implicated and convicted?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153061143281752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Pages 114/919 to 117/919

Quote ... "Police met him regarding this case. Police enquired him about the purchase of jewellery of Selvi Jayalalitha and her people and also about the types of jewellery and when these were purchased from our company. They enquired him at office of the Prevention and Corruption Department. He was called office and gone to there approximately 10 times of enquiry. They called him 10 times to Prevention of Corruption without issuing a notice. He asked them about this to them. Still they did not issue any notice to him. During those enquiry they forced him to sign on written papers for which he refused. During those enquiry police asked him for 10 years of receipt books of his company. Inspite of protesting that those books do not contain receipts regarding sale of jewellery to Selvi Jayalalitha they seized them. Police seized approximately 300 receipt books from their company and they returned it back approximately after 1 year. He does not know that either to read and write Tamil but he knew to speak Tamil. When police enquired him Nallamma Naidu reduced everything. He stated into writing and secured his signature....

... The year of purchase of gold cannot be determined by merely seeing the gold jewellery and the same is applicable to silver wear and diamond jewellery....

... There is no chance for wear and tear for the jewellery if there is no rubbing...

.... If the jewellery is used with great care and caution and used occasionally it will retain its sine and there will be no wear and tear. There will be no even a minute depreciation. They canot determine accurate weight of stone studded and they could not determine the exact weight of gold and stones separately.

He did not give the documents relating to Ex.P1010 to Ex.P1016 to the Prevention of Corruption Department Police. After he evaluates the jewels in Ex.P1010 to Ex.P1016. On the dates mentioned the documents, while tendering evidence in this case he did not examine Ex.P703 with reference to the assessment report. He has not seen Ex.P703 so far. Further while he was tendering evidence in the court he was not shown any jewels. When Nallamma Naidu recorded his statement they did not ask him to compare the assessment report Exs.P1010 to P1016 with Ex.P703 and asked him to take statement. Further without seeing the jewels and pursuing the details mentioned in Ex.P703 he cannot state whether they include in the assessment report....

.... Selvi Jayalalitha has never contacted us telephonically and told regarding purchase of jewellery. He did not make his statement that Selvi Jayalalitha has contacted them telephonically. Further nobody said to present Selvi Jayalalitha telephonically contacted them regarding purchase of jewellery and they did not come to their establishment on the basis of talk and purchased any jewels. As neither (spelling mistake noted in judgement; typed as either, but should have been neither, taking into account the contextual meaning) Selvi Jayalalitha or her representatives made any purchases of jewellery in their shop question of asking or giving receipt does not arise. During the examination in Chief he has stated in his evidence that he made Diamond Ottiyanam for Tmt. Sasikala on receipt diamonds from Tmt.Sasikala on the basis of instructions of police. But she did not send them 250 diamonds and gold for making ottiyanam. Further during the course of the examination Chief he has stated that after making ottiyanam and received making charges only under the compulsion of police. As they did not make ottiyanam question of handing it over to Tmt. Sasikala did not arise. He does not know that how to read Tamil hence without reading the examination in Chief he has signed."...End of Quote

---

The following concerns arise:

1. "Police met him regarding this case. Police enquired him about the purchase of jewellery of Selvi Jayalalitha and her people and also about the types of jewellery and when these were purchased from our company. They enquired him at office of the Prevention and Corruption Department. He was called office and gone to there approximately 10 times of enquiry. They called him 10 times to Prevention of Corruption without issuing a notice. He asked them about this to them. Still they did not issue any notice to him. During those enquiry they forced him to sign on written papers for which he refused. During those enquiry police asked him for 10 years of receipt books of his company. Inspite of protesting that those books do not contain receipts regarding sale of jewellery to Selvi Jayalalitha they seized them. Police seized approximately 300 receipt books from their company and they returned it back approximately after 1 year. He does not know that either to read and write Tamil but he knew to speak Tamil. When police enquired him Nallamma Naidu reduced everything. He stated into writing and secured his signature...." --- Why is he saying this? Isnt it strange?

2. "... The year of purchase of gold cannot be determined by merely seeing the gold jewellery and the same is applicable to silver wear and diamond jewellery.... " -- Why is he saying this? Was he asked to determine the year of purchase of gold by merely seeing the gold, silver and diamond jewellery?

3. "... There is no chance for wear and tear for the jewellery if there is no rubbing....... If the jewellery is used with great care and caution and used occasionally it will retain its sine and there will be no wear and tear. There will be no even a minute depreciation. " -- Why is he saying this? Was some old unused jewellery attempted to be passed off as fresh newly bought jewellery?

4. "He did not give the documents relating to Ex.P1010 to Ex.P1016 to the Prevention of Corruption Department Police. After he evaluates the jewels in Ex.P1010 to Ex.P1016. On the dates mentioned the documents, while tendering evidence in this case he did not examine Ex.P703 with reference to the assessment report. He has not seen Ex.P703 so far. Further while he was tendering evidence in the court he was not shown any jewels. When Nallamma Naidu recorded his statement they did not ask him to compare the assessment report Exs.P1010 to P1016 with Ex.P703 and asked him to take statement. Further without seeing the jewels and pursuing the details mentioned in Ex.P703 he cannot state whether they include in the assessment report...." --- Why is he saying this? What was the confusion regarding the jewels? Were they attempting any strange thing with the jewels?

5. ".... Selvi Jayalalitha has never contacted us telephonically and told regarding purchase of jewellery. He did not make his statement that Selvi Jayalalitha has contacted them telephonically. Further nobody said to present Selvi Jayalalitha telephonically contacted them regarding purchase of jewellery and they did not come to their establishment on the basis of talk and purchased any jewels. As neither (spelling mistake noted in judgement; typed as either, but should have been neither, taking into account the contextual meaning) Selvi Jayalalitha or her representatives made any purchases of jewellery in their shop question of asking or giving receipt does not arise. During the examination in Chief he has stated in his evidence that he made Diamond Ottiyanam for Tmt. Sasikala on receipt diamonds from Tmt.Sasikala on the basis of instructions of police. But she did not send them 250 diamonds and gold for making ottiyanam. " --- Why is he saying this? What was the confusion regarding the jewels? Were they attempting any strange thing with the jewels? A doubt arises whether they were they attempting to fabricate evidence against the defendant using him?

6. "Further during the course of the examination Chief he has stated that after making ottiyanam and received making charges only under the compulsion of police. As they did not make ottiyanam question of handing it over to Tmt. Sasikala did not arise. He does not know that how to read Tamil hence without reading the examination in Chief he has signed." -- Why is he saying this? What was the confusion regarding the jewels? Were they attempting any strange thing with the jewels? A doubt arises whether they were attempting to fabricate evidence against the defendant using him? Doesnt the doubt of fabrication of evidence against the defendant grow stronger and stronger? If so, was only this evidence alone fabricated against the defendant so that she can be implicated and convicted or was more such evidences attempted to be fabricated so that the defendant can be surely expected to be implicated and convicted?




Back to Top of Page











Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
There arises a doubt whether this was also an attempt to fabricate evidence against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha so that she can be surely be implicated and convicted? If so, how many such evidences were fabricated against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha? In such a case, did the entire case have any quantum of truth in it, or was it entirely a fabricated case with fabricated evidence with the sole motive to implicate and convict the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153061204211752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 124/919

Quote... "P.W.183 -- T.Ramesh was working as a Managing Director of Mouli's Advertising Services Company. He was asked to print the wedding invitation of V.N. Sudhakaran. He took order and got printed 65,000 wedding invitation and 5,000 car passes. He has prepared a bill of Rs.11,00,000/- for printing the above invitations and car passes. He gave invoices to Jawahar. Ex.P1284 is the cheque dated 15.9.1995. A-1 has signed on the cheque.

During the cross-examination, he states that he has not produced the document for having received a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- for printing. He has received Ex.P1284 - cheque for AIADMK party's work" ...End of Quote



Read together with:

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153061143281752

---



The following concerns arise:

1. Bill is stated as issued for Rs.11,00,000. But payment cheque is for Rs.10,50,000. A company issuing a bill for Rs. 11 Lakhs will have to be issued a payment cheque for Rs. 11 Lakhs and not for an amount lesser than the bill by 4.545%. Even if discount is given it is usually a round percentage and not a fraction as 4.545%. So there should be an anomaly between the bill of Rs. 11 Lakhs and payment of Rs. 10 Lakhs fifty thousand. Maybe the bill of Rs. 11 Lakhs and the payment of Rs.10 lakhs fifty thousand are not related at all?

2. Later during the cross examination he explains that he has received the cheque of Rs. 10,50,000/- for AIADMK party work and not for printing wedding invitation and car passes. This is in agreement with the concern raised in point above whether the bill and payment are not related at all.

3. So, how was a cheque issued for Rs. 10,50,000/- for AIADMK party work get labelled as a cheque payment for wedding invitations and car passes printing?

4. If there was a cash payment, there can be doubts regarding the payment, coz its a huge sum. However, when there is a cheque payment for such a huge sum, then it should be an authentic cheque.

5. In such a case, how was it stated that a bill was issued for Rs.11,00,000/- for printing wedding invitations and car passes?

6. Read together with https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153061143281752 there arises a doubt whether this was also an attempt to fabricate evidence against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha so that she can be surely be implicated and convicted? If so, how many such evidences were fabricated against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha? In such a case, did the entire case have any quantum of truth in it, or was it entirely a fabricated case with fabricated evidence with the sole motive to implicate and convict the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha?



Back to Top of Page








Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
On a private complaint that alleged corruption in public office against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, why should they try to use such trivial non-technical non-scientific non-engineering methods to assess? Unnecessary use of expletive adjectives raises a doubt whether they were making out a case when there was none? If there was substance, then they should have been to the point and added nothing more. However, it is found that decorative sentences and adjectives are used here and in other parts of Judgement copy cited above. In short, were they setting up a case of corruption against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, when there was no case at all?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153062359391752

Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 146/919 (read together with such similar statements in the above Ref):

Quote ... "At the time of their inspection, the building was constructed upto the basement. They have taken the detail and elaborate measurement. From his experience, he can say that the above building would have constructed one or two years prior to their inspection" ... End of Quote



---



The following concerns arise here:

1. "At the time of their inspection, the building was constructed upto the basement" -- When something is constructed upto the basement, does it qualify to be called as a building? Wont it be only a substructure? Why should it be called as a building when it is only a substructure?

2. "They have taken the detail and elaborate measurement." -- What sort of elaborate measurement can be done on a substructure? Isnt it easy to measure a basement level construction? Why should the adjective "elaborate" be used unnecessary? Was there any motive in introducing an unnecessary adjective to enhance the value of the measurement done?

3. "From his experience, he can say that the above building would have constructed one or two years prior to their inspection" -- Did they not have any tool or technique to evaluate it? Why should they resort to experience of a person? Was there any universally accepted truth that his experience is the ultimate benchmark in evaluation? Was his experience the final word on assessment on the planet? In short, did it qualify to be called as an inspection or was it just a visit and an opinion given by someone based on his experience (merit of which is not available, not acknowledged universally)?

4. On a private complaint that alleged corruption in public office against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, why should they try to use such trivial non-technical non-scientific non-engineering methods to assess?

5. Unnecessary use of expletive adjectives raises a doubt whether they were making out a case when there was none? If there was substance, then they should have been to the point and added nothing more. However, it is found that decorative sentences and adjectives are used here and in other parts of Judgement copy cited above.

6. In short, were they setting up a case of corruption against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, when there was no case at all?




Back to Top of Page







Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
On the basis of such and similar Prosecution Witnesses, was a case of corruption while in public office made out against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha due to a private complaint? Goodness !!! Why wasnt a test of sanity performed on such and similar prosecution witnesses? Pages and pages of Prosecution Witness testimony with NO substance in it? Would this even qualify as a fiction novel? Would this qualify as Trash? If it is qualified as trash, then how come a case of corruption while in public office was made out against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, based on such Prosecution Witnesses? Has there been a gross injustice meted out to Ms. J. Jayalalitha? Who are all going to apologise to the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha for having meted out such gross injustice to her? Is there going to be any compensation being awarded to the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha for having suffered without reason? If the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha has been implicated and convicted and imprisoned based on such trash valuation reports that helped to build a case of corruption while in public office against her wrongly, then is the complainant and all those who assisted him and all those who made out or setup or framed evidence against the defendant wrongly going to be implicated, convicted and imprisoned and made to suffer the same fate as the defendant was made to suffer wrongly? Will injustice meted out to the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha be set right through appropriate remedial action or compensation?

https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153064318846752



To be read together with previous scientific review comments on the same, posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement :



Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 165/919 to 175/919

Quote ... "PW.220 - Thiruthuva Raj has deposed that he has been working in the Public Works Department for the last 22 years. He was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.). His qualification was B.E. (Elecl.). He has good experience in valuing the electrical fittings in the buildings...

...During the cross-examination, he has deposed that to inspect the property at Ciruthavur, the Asst. Executive Engineer, Sivalingam, an Assistant Engineer (Civil) were went to the said place. For assistance, Selvaraj, the Asst. Engineer came along with him. The Vigilance Engineer did not come to Ciruthavur. His assistant and he inspected the electrical devices from morning 9 am to evening 5 pm....

... It is not correct to say that Selvaraj and he did not go to Ciruthavoor, that they did not inspect anything and so they did not attach a detailed report in X21 and that the amount mentioned in the X21 is not the actual amount. In Ex.P.663 in the 7th page, it is mentioned in a line that the value of the electrical devices is Rs. 47,75,000/-. It bears his signature, but his detailed report was not attached. X22 is the 7th page of Ex.P.663. he cannot give the details of the electrical devices in that place using X22. Using X22, at present, he cannot state how the above mentioned amount was arrived at. He cannot use X21 at present moment to state what electrical devices were there and how the total sum mentioned in it was arrived at....

... In X21, six members have signed, but nobody mentioned the date. The police did not ask for X21 on which the date was not mentioned. Generally the date signature and seal are always mentioned on any report by a higher authority like him. The dates were not mentioned in Exs.P.661, P663 and P2152. They did not submit to the police the notes that they have made. The police too did not ask for it. He did not attach the notes in his report and send it...

...He was saying this out of his experience. The value can be indicated accurately only after referring to the department guidelines. In his report, he did not attach the cost of then prevalent market rates. For every article, he knew the difference between the wholesale rate and retail rate. In his report, he did not specify whether he has mentioned the wholesale rate or the retail rate of the articles. But, he took only the retail rate. There is a lot of difference in retail rates from place to place and shop to shop. ... According to the brands the rates differ...

... He did not take any quotations in writing from Peverica company. He went there directly and find out the rates by oral enquiry. In his report, he did not mention how old the generator was. He was aware of the existence of the Tamil Nadu Statistics Department. That office is on DMS Campus in Tenampet. he did not go over there and get the statistical index. The police did not force him to submit the report in a specified. He has mentioned his assessment in his report after an oral enquiry. He saw the diesel pump set prepared the estimations for very urgent works. Regarding electricity, the PWD guidelines have been revised twice after independence. The last time it was renewed from 1980 to 1985. He has not written the details of the items pertaining either to the PWD schedule rates or the shop rates in his report. As far as Paiyanur buildings were concerned, the electricity suppy was in working condition when he was inspected but he did not mention this in his report. He enquired about 6 to 7 shops about chandeliers in Tenampet. He had drawn out a picture of the chandelier when he made a note and so he took this to Tenampet shops while making enquiries. The names of the shops are Crystalite and Modern Height, but he does not remember the names of other shops. He did not take down the notes of the chandeliers in writing from the shops. He enquired generally the rate of the chandeliers differ from year to year. There is always a discount for bulk purchase. After observing all things, he gave his assessment in his report, but he has not mentioned in writing that.

He has observed all these things and then made his report. Regarding the electrical devices, Selvaraj and he went to the above said shops and enquired about the rates. The rates of the electrical devices were enquired by him in different places like Tenampet, Parrys corner, Ambattur. There is traveling allowance for traveling over 8 kms. He did not claim any TA for this work. He used the government jeep to go to all these places. When he went to shops to enquire, he used his own motor bike. Before 1985, he claimed the TA (when I was in Trichy). The price of the two Ton "O" general air-conditioner was Rs.60,000/- (2 Ton multi spirit split into two). A person connected with the house was there when he inspected the Paiyanur house. He does not remember his name. The details are not mentioned in his report. In Ex.P.662 he has marked in a pencil on page 83 a word 'actual'. It indicates that the condition of the articles there. When he inspected the place, he did not take the signature of the person from the house, who was present in the house stating that he should be present on the premises till they finish their investigation. The Ex.P.662 was typed by the Typist Vijayakumar. He has signed it and handed it over to Swarnan. The signature of the Inspector Jayapal was not taken in Ex.P.662, the details for Thiru. Jayapal's presence at the time of the assessment was not mentioned in the assessment in Ex.P.662. Thiru. Jayapal did not sign in his note taken by him. At present, the estimation is not attached to Ex.P.661. When they inspected the Ciruthavur buildings, Thiru. Jayapal was with them. His signature is not there in Ex.P.661. The estimation for the electrical devices was not attached to Ex.P.663. He gave the estimation report to Thiru. Swarnam, but it was not attached now to the Ex.P.663. The inspector Thiru. Shanmuga Nadar was present, but his signature is not there in Ex.P.663, when they inspected the Poes Garden house, an advocate of the owner of the house was present, but he does not remember his name. At that time, along with Thiru. Nallama Naidu, Superintendent and two police inspectors were there. But he has also not remembered their names. At that time, Swarnam did not come along with them. Thiru. Jayapal Administrative Engineer was with them. Nothing was given in writing to inspect the building. They inspected the building as the higher authorities and Thiru. Jayapal asked them to do. Thiru. Jayapal is the Administrative Engineer. About a month and ten days after the investigation of the Ciruthavur building, they inspected the Poes Garden building for two days. Both the days the advocate of the building owner was there. From what the others were saying, gathered that the advocate was a close associate of the owner. he did not come to know this directly from the advocate. They did not receive any Court order to go and inspect these buildings. He knew that the Poes Garden house belongs to Ex.Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha. Thiru. Jayapal orally told him and took him to the house. He did not get anything in writing. The Chief Engineer has the power to appoint and take necessary actions. The Chief Engineer did not given any order in writing to inspect the Poes Garden. After inspecting the Poes Garden, he did not send any detailed letter to the Chief Engineer. When they inspected the Poes Garden, the Electrician Velagiri was with them. This information was not mentioned in Ex.P.2152. In Ex.P.2152 they have not taken his signature. He inspected the Poes Garden house on the words of his higher authority Thiru Jayapal. When he inspected the building many police men were there, i.e., six to sevel police men. They inspected the building from 9 am to 11 am, 11 30 am to 1 30 pm (forenoon), 2 30 pm to 5 pm (afternoon). For his assistance, the Assistant Engineer Thiru. Selvaraj was with him. In the house, there was an office room and in the report he has mentioned that room as camp office. When they inspected, the 1st accused was not the Chief Minister. Already, he has taken care of the Poes Garden house, that is why he knew that is the camp office. He has taken care of the electrical devices in the said house. That Poes Garden house comes under the jurisdiction of the Asst. Executive Engineer. So he has taken care of the electrical devices in that house. That house is a private property and it is not a government property. In his office, he was having the documents for maintenance but at present it is not with him. He has taken care of the electrical devices in that house in 1995-96. The house comes in their office jurisdiction and because of this, he was saying that he has taken care of that house. He does not know that how many years old that house is? At that time, the Door No. 31-A, Poes Garden house was under construction. He does not know that when they did the wiring for the old house. The value of the electrical devices goes with the brand of the electrical devices and usage of the articles. He has got his B.E. Degree in Electrical and Electronics in the year 1973 in PSG College of Technology, Kovai. In his Degree certificate, it is written as B.E. Electrical and Electronics. The witness is telling that in his Degree Certificate, it has been written as only BE Electrical and not as Electronics. The Television and Antenna are the Electronics related devices like diesel engines are related to mechanical side.....

In his estimate, his report Ex.P.2152 was not attached. In Ex.P.2152 the date of his inspection was not mentioned. It is not mentioned in Ex.P.2152 who all did the inspection and who were all present at the time of the inspection....

... The item 108 is diesel generator. For that, he put Rs.6,55,000/- as the value rate, but he did not mention the brand name. For that also he did not mention the brand name. When they are taking the note, they wont value the articles. After verifying the rates in the market, they have prepared the value assessment list, they put the present market rate for the items 1 to 129 when they prepared the report i.e. Nov 1996, market rate value. They did not verify the rates with the rates in writing..

... He does not know that the discounting for the wear and tear for the electrical devices in the income-tax department. He does not know that the discounting for the wear and tear of the electrical devices in property tax department. When they prepared the above mentioned four reports, they did not keep any public with them. When they inspect, they did not take any member of the public with them. He does not know that there is any government approved value for valuing the electrical devices and surveyors. He does not know whether his higher officers sent his four reports to any private values for verification. To the best of his knowledge, he did not send it. " End of Quote



---



The following concerns arise here:

1. "PW.220 - Thiruthuva Raj has deposed that he has been working in the Public Works Department for the last 22 years. He was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.). His qualification was B.E. (Elecl.). He has good experience in valuing the electrical fittings in the buildings..." --- B.E. is an undergraduate degree in Engineering where the students are taught the basics in almost all of the important areas in that field of engineering as core subjects, along with some recent areas as electives. Only in the Masters degree in Engineering, students get specialized in one or many areas. A PhD degree is an asset if someone needs to get exposed to some good analytical ability and also application of the same. In such a case, how does Mr. Thiruthuva Raj declare that he has good experience in valuing the electrical fittings in the buildings just coz he's got an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering accompanied with a 22 year stint in the PWD? Does Mr. Thiruthuva Raj hold any certification that he is a qualified valuer or assessor for electrical fittings in the buildings? If so, is he certified to value electrical fittings that are already fitted in buildings or is he certified to value electrical fittings that are not yet fitted in buildings?

2. "...During the cross-examination, he has deposed that to inspect the property at Ciruthavur, the Asst. Executive Engineer, Sivalingam, an Assistant Engineer (Civil) were went to the said place. For assistance, Selvaraj, the Asst. Engineer came along with him. The Vigilance Engineer did not come to Ciruthavur. His assistant and he inspected the electrical devices from morning 9 am to evening 5 pm...." -- Was the Vigilance Engineer unable to come to Ciruthavur? If the Vigilance Engineer was unable to come to Ciruthavur, shouldnt they have waited until the Vigilance Engineer arrived? Why should they attempt to evaluate in the absence of the Vigilance Engineer?

3. "... It is not correct to say that Selvaraj and he did not go to Ciruthavoor, that they did not inspect anything and so they did not attach a detailed report in X21 and that the amount mentioned in the X21 is not the actual amount. " -- If it is not correct to say that Selvaraj and he did not go to Ciruthavoor, and if they did inspect anything, do they have proof for it? Have they attached any proof? In the absence of proof, how can they justify that they went to Ciruthavoor? Just coz he says that he went to Ciruthavoor, can it be believed?

4. "In Ex.P.663 in the 7th page, it is mentioned in a line that the value of the electrical devices is Rs. 47,75,000/-. It bears his signature, but his detailed report was not attached. " -- Just coz it is mentioned in one single line that the value of electrical devices is Rs. 47,75,000/- and coz it bears his signature, how can it be accepted as a valid assessment or valuation when the detailed report is not attached?

5. "X22 is the 7th page of Ex.P.663. he cannot give the details of the electrical devices in that place using X22. Using X22, at present, he cannot state how the above mentioned amount was arrived at. He cannot use X21 at present moment to state what electrical devices were there and how the total sum mentioned in it was arrived at...." --- If he cannot provide any proof of valuation or assessment, and if he himself states that, then how can his single line statement that the value of the electrical devices is Rs. 47,75,000/- bearing only his signature, can be accepted? Just coz it bears his signature, can whatever he has stated be accepted as a valid valuation or assessment? Read together with previous paragraphs, where he states that he has worked in PWD for 22 years, has a BE Electrical degree and according to his own view, he thinks that he's got good experience in valuing the electrical fittings in the buildings, can it be accepted that the value of the electrical devices is Rs. 47,75,000/- ?

6. "... In X21, six members have signed, but nobody mentioned the date." -- If there is no date, then isnt it invalid?

7. "The police did not ask for X21 on which the date was not mentioned." -- Why?

8. "Generally the date signature and seal are always mentioned on any report by a higher authority like him." -- Does he think that he is a higher authority? Is there any Govt. notification or order or correspondence that indicates that he is a higher authority? If he is indeed a higher authority, and if generally the date signature and seal are always mentioned on any report by a higher authority like him, then why didnt he affix the date, signature and seal? Coz he didnt affix the date, signature and seal together, was any disciplinary action taken against him? When he was supposed to affix together the date, signature and seal, and when he didnt do it, did he have any other ulterior motive in mind? Was it investigated?

9. "The dates were not mentioned in Exs.P.661, P663 and P2152." -- Why?

10. "They did not submit to the police the notes that they have made." --- Why?

11. "The police too did not ask for it." -- Why?

12. "He did not attach the notes in his report and send it" --- Why?

13. "He was saying this out of his experience" -- Read together with previous paragraphs, would anyone believe that he really acquired any experience?

14. "The value can be indicated accurately only after referring to the department guidelines" -- If so, did he refer or did he not refer? Why has he not elaborated on it?

15. "In his report, he did not attach the cost of then prevalent market rates" -- Why?

16. "For every article, he knew the difference between the wholesale rate and retail rate" -- How come? Does he think that he is a human encyclopedia? He might know anything. Who is going to certify that what he knows is the right thing? Why didnt he provide records of wholesale rate and retail rate? Was he misrepresenting anything that he didnt want to provide records and expected others to believe him that he knew everything?

17. "In his report, he did not specify whether he has mentioned the wholesale rate or the retail rate of the articles. " -- Why? Was he misrepresenting anything?

18. "But, he took only the retail rate." -- How to believe it, in the absence of proof? Why does he want others to believe him? Why cant he provide proof?

19. "There is a lot of difference in retail rates from place to place and shop to shop." -- Who asked about this story here? If there is a lot of difference and if it should not be like that, he has to file a report with the appropriate Govt. agency that retail rates are varying a lot from place to place and shop to shop. This should not be done while providing statement as a prosecution witness.

20. "According to the brands the rates differ..." -- Fine, but is this the appropriate forum to discuss this? Is he telling a story?

21. "He did not take any quotations in writing from Peverica company" -- Why? Any company would provide a quotation on request. Why didnt he request a quotation? Didnt he want to evaluate without a quotation? Did he feel that a quotation will affect his valuation detrimentally? If so, was he planning to do a fair valuation or was he planning to do an unfair valuation?

22. "He went there directly and find out the rates by oral enquiry" -- Why? What was the necessity? In previous paragraphs, he has stated that he is a higher authority? Wouldnt it be possible for him to call them up and ask for a quotation to be sent to him by email or fax or courier or post or personal delivery? Did he go there in person with a fair motive or with an ulterior motive?

23. "In his report, he did not mention how old the generator was" -- Why? Was he hiding anything? Was the generator so old that it was only worth as scrap metal? Was it working? Or was it kept there, just for the sake of any sentimental reason, though growing so old that it would be worth only as scrap metal?

24. "He was aware of the existence of the Tamil Nadu Statistics Department. That office is on DMS Campus in Tenampet. he did not go over there and get the statistical index." -- Why? When there was a possibility of being able to get a quotation from a private company, he has rushed there in person and tried to get details orally. But for the sake of the TN Statistics Department, he mentions that he was aware of the existence of the TN Stats Department at DMS Campus in Teynampet, though he is also a TN Govt. official in the PWD? Does this statement of his qualify as arrogance? Moreover he states that he did not go over there and get the statistical index. Why? He rushes to a private company but does not want to visit a Govt. Office, when he is also a govt. official. Does he expect better co-operation from a private company compared to a Govt. Office? If so, was he throwing his weight of being a higher authority (according to his words) on the private company to provide some data? Was he expecting to get fair data out of the private company or was he expecting to get unfair data out of the private company? Was he expecting any benefit by exhibiting or displaying his higher authority status in front of a private company? Was he exploiting the private company?

25. "The police did not force him to submit the report in a specified" --- Why?

26. "He has mentioned his assessment in his report after an oral enquiry" --- Why? Was he hiding anything? Was he trying to do anything bad? Why should he mention his assessment only after an oral enquiry?

27. "He saw the diesel pump set prepared the estimations for very urgent works. Regarding electricity, the PWD guidelines have been revised twice after independence. The last time it was renewed from 1980 to 1985. He has not written the details of the items pertaining either to the PWD schedule rates or the shop rates in his report. " -- What does he mean? Does he mean that he saw the diesel pump set and prepared the estimation? What does he mean by including the phrase "very urgent works" here? Or did he mean that he saw the diesel pump set which was prepared for very urgent works and he prepared the estimations? Why does he introduce so much of ambiguity? Did he have a fair reason to introduce ambiguity or did he have an ulterior motive to introduce ambiguity? What is the relation to the diesel pump set and PWD guidelines revision twice after independence? Is the revision of the PWD guidelines revision twice after independence significant? If so, was there any revision in PWD guidelines before independence? Was it insignificant?

28. "As far as Paiyanur buildings were concerned, the electricity suppy was in working condition when he was inspected but he did not mention this in his report." --- Does it mean that in other buildings inspected by him, there was no electricity supply? If there was no electricity supply, were the buildings actually built? Did he actually inspect? Where is the proof? Why does he always not mention things in his report? Is he hiding something? Is he manipulating records so that the defendant can be implicated or convicted?

29. "He enquired about 6 to 7 shops about chandeliers in Tenampet" -- He cannot go to TN Stats Dept. in DMS Campus in Tenampet but he can enquire about chandeliers in 6 to 7 shops in Tenampet? Why was so much of priority to the chandelier shops in tenapmet fixed higher compared to the insignificant priority to the TN Stats Dept. in DMS Campus in Tenampet?

30. "He had drawn out a picture of the chandelier when he made a note and so he took this to Tenampet shops while making enquiries." -- Why? Did he not have a camera? Did his department not provide him a camera for evaluation? Didnt the vigilance department provide him with a camera? Was he a qualified artist so that he can make an authentic representation of the chandelier by means of drawing a picture? Is this an acceptable method of valuation?

31. "The names of the shops are Crystalite and Modern Height, but he does not remember the names of other shops. He did not take down the notes of the chandeliers in writing from the shops. He enquired generally the rate of the chandeliers differ from year to year. There is always a discount for bulk purchase. After observing all things, he gave his assessment in his report, but he has not mentioned in writing that." -- When he cannot even remember the names of other shops (6 to 7 minus two will give 4 to 5 shops only) where he went to gather data for evaluation, how can he remember the technical methods of electrical evaluation so well, that he evaluates as per his whims and fancies (as noted in above paragraphs)? Is he writing a story and expecting everyone to believe him?

32. "He has observed all these things and then made his report." -- Where is the proof that he has observed? And where is the detailed report, along with record of the observations and proof of authenticity?

33. "Regarding the electrical devices, Selvaraj and he went to the above said shops and enquired about the rates. The rates of the electrical devices were enquired by him in different places like Tenampet, Parrys corner, Ambattur. " -- When he does not remember the names of the shops that he visited to gather data, how can he remember the data that he collected from them? He stated in previous paragraphs that all the 6 to 7 shops were in Tenampet. How come suddenly, some of the shops were still in Tenampet and others shifted to Parrys corner and Ambattur?

34. "There is traveling allowance for traveling over 8 kms. He did not claim any TA for this work. He used the government jeep to go to all these places. When he went to shops to enquire, he used his own motor bike. Before 1985, he claimed the TA (when I was in Trichy)." -- When he is eligible for TA, why didnt he claim it? Is he so magnanimous? Was there any public record of his magnanimity or generosity? Which all places he used govt. jeep? When he went to enquire why didnt he use the govt. jeep? Why should he go there in his own motor bike? Was he hiding anything? Was he hiding his visit? Was he doing any wrong thing by going there? Why should he go there under camouflage? He states that before 1985, he claimed TA. Is it of any significance to the valuation here that he claims that he did coz he has good experience?

35. "The price of the two Ton "O" general air-conditioner was Rs.60,000/- (2 Ton multi spirit split into two)." -- Is he talking about the price of the airconditioners in the shops that he visited to enquire? Where was the two air-conditioners present?

36. "A person connected with the house was there when he inspected the Paiyanur house. He does not remember his name. The details are not mentioned in his report. " -- How does he know that the person was connected to the house? Read together with previous paragraphs, does he have a selective memory, as he seems to state that he has forgotten important points, while he discusses at length on trivial points? Read together with previous paragraphs, if nothing is mentioned in his report, does it qualify to be called as a report?

37. "In Ex.P.662 he has marked in a pencil on page 83 a word 'actual'. It indicates that the condition of the articles there" -- Why should he suddenly introduce a new term 'actual'? Has he marked the word 'actual' on all of his reports? If NOT, was this the only actual and the rest 'fictional'?

38. "When he inspected the place, he did not take the signature of the person from the house, who was present in the house stating that he should be present on the premises till they finish their investigation." -- When he inspected the place, he did not take the signature of the person from the house. Was he expected by law to take a signature from the person who was at the house? If he was expected by law to take a signature from the person who was at the house and if he has not done it, then wont that invalidate the inspection? Why is he trying to divert attention about what the person said regarding their presence until he finishes his investigation? Whether that person stayed until he finisht his inspection or left earlier or left later, what difference does it make to him? Its not his house.. Its also not under his authority... He has gone there only for an inspection.. Why should he be worried about the person in the house? Read together with previous paragraphs, he should have been more worried about doing the inspection in a good manner, instead he seems to be worrying about everything else other than the inspection. Isnt it strange? If so, was he trying to do any wrong in the investigations and in the reports? Was he attempting any malpractice in the investigations and in the reports?

39. "The signature of the Inspector Jayapal was not taken in Ex.P.662, the details for Thiru. Jayapal's presence at the time of the assessment was not mentioned in the assessment in Ex.P.662. Thiru. Jayapal did not sign in his note taken by him. At present, the estimation is not attached to Ex.P.661. When they inspected the Ciruthavur buildings, Thiru. Jayapal was with them. His signature is not there in Ex.P.661." -- If he should have taken the signature, he should have. If he should have taken the signature and if he did not, wont it invalidate the inspection. Why is he trying to tell stories? Is he trying to divert attention from the fact that he has not taken the signature (where it should have been taken)? Is he trying to make an invalid investigation report into a valid one?

40. "The estimation for the electrical devices was not attached to Ex.P.663." -- Why? Was he hiding anything?

41. "He gave the estimation report to Thiru. Swarnam, but it was not attached now to the Ex.P.663." -- Does he have any proof that he gave the estimation report to Thiru. Swarnam?

42. "The inspector Thiru. Shanmuga Nadar was present, but his signature is not there in Ex.P.663, when they inspected the Poes Garden house, an advocate of the owner of the house was present, but he does not remember his name. At that time, along with Thiru. Nallama Naidu, Superintendent and two police inspectors were there. But he has also not remembered their names. At that time, Swarnam did not come along with them. Thiru. Jayapal Administrative Engineer was with them." -- Again, absence of signature and he is trying to tell stories again. When he inspected the Poes Garden house, wasnt he supposed to do any investigation or assessment? Why is he worried about whether an advocate was there or not? Doesnt he have a rule book that specifies how an investigation or assessment should be done? He seems to be doing everything that he likes, and on top of it presents it as a valid assessment? He always seems to state that he does not remember? Further, he does not have valid proofs? On top of it, does he want everyone to believe whatever he says? Was any clinical investigation done on him to ascertain whether he is fit to discharge his duties? All that he seems to be doing is telling stories instead of discussing about his valuation or assessment?

43. "Nothing was given in writing to inspect the building." -- Then on what basis did he go to inspect the building? Can he do anything he wants coz he thinks he is a higher authority with a lot of valuation experience, having worked in PWD for 22 years and having a BE Degree in Electrical?

44. "They inspected the building as the higher authorities and Thiru. Jayapal asked them to do. Thiru. Jayapal is the Administrative Engineer." -- Read together with previous paragraphs, he claimed that he is a higher authority. Now he states that higher authorities and Thiru Jayapal (the Administrative Engineer) asked them to inspect, and nothing was given in writing to inspect the building? Under the guise of an inspection, have they trespassed on private property? Did they really do any investigation? Or did they go in and set-up things to their own convenience so that using that they can implicate or convict the defendant?

45. "About a month and ten days after the investigation of the Ciruthavur building, they inspected the Poes Garden building for two days. Both the days the advocate of the building owner was there. From what the others were saying, gathered that the advocate was a close associate of the owner. he did not come to know this directly from the advocate. They did not receive any Court order to go and inspect these buildings. He knew that the Poes Garden house belongs to Ex.Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha. Thiru. Jayapal orally told him and took him to the house. He did not get anything in writing. The Chief Engineer has the power to appoint and take necessary actions. The Chief Engineer did not given any order in writing to inspect the Poes Garden. After inspecting the Poes Garden, he did not send any detailed letter to the Chief Engineer. When they inspected the Poes Garden, the Electrician Velagiri was with them. This information was not mentioned in Ex.P.2152. In Ex.P.2152 they have not taken his signature. He inspected the Poes Garden house on the words of his higher authority Thiru Jayapal. When he inspected the building many police men were there, i.e., six to sevel police men. They inspected the building from 9 am to 11 am, 11 30 am to 1 30 pm (forenoon), 2 30 pm to 5 pm (afternoon). For his assistance, the Assistant Engineer Thiru. Selvaraj was with him. In the house, there was an office room and in the report he has mentioned that room as camp office. When they inspected, the 1st accused was not the Chief Minister. Already, he has taken care of the Poes Garden house, that is why he knew that is the camp office. He has taken care of the electrical devices in the said house. That Poes Garden house comes under the jurisdiction of the Asst. Executive Engineer. So he has taken care of the electrical devices in that house. That house is a private property and it is not a government property. In his office, he was having the documents for maintenance but at present it is not with him. He has taken care of the electrical devices in that house in 1995-96. The house comes in their office jurisdiction and because of this, he was saying that he has taken care of that house. He does not know that how many years old that house is? At that time, the Door No. 31-A, Poes Garden house was under construction. He does not know that when they did the wiring for the old house. The value of the electrical devices goes with the brand of the electrical devices and usage of the articles." -- Isnt this sheer nonsense? They claim to inspect a building without orders? They are more worried about who is watching them (on behalf of the defendant)? They do NOT have any court order to inspect? So, if Thiru. Jayapal orally told him to go and inspect the Prime Minister's Residence or Rashtrapathi Bhavan (without court order), will he go to Prime Minister's residence or rashtrapathi bhavan and spy on all the people present there under the guise of an investigation done without written instructions or court orders? Either is he mad or is he trying to make the people mad? Why did they permit him to do this without any proper clinical clearance on his sanity?

46. "He has got his B.E. Degree in Electrical and Electronics in the year 1973 in PSG College of Technology, Kovai. In his Degree certificate, it is written as B.E. Electrical and Electronics. The witness is telling that in his Degree Certificate, it has been written as only BE Electrical and not as Electronics. The Television and Antenna are the Electronics related devices like diesel engines are related to mechanical side..... " -- Read again along with earlier paragraphs, taking into account the style of reporting, was he really qualified to receive the BE degree? Did he really pass in all the examinations required to be passed for qualification for the award of the degree? Is there any provision to investigate the merit of his degree from PSG College of Technology, Kovai? Read together with previous paragraphs, did he really pursue his degree in a fair manner at PSG College of Technology, Kovai? Read together with previous paragraphs, did he also answer his exam question papers in the same way? Did the examiners find that he had answered the questions in a suitable manner? Did the college PSG College of Technology, Kovai and the University concerned ascertain whether he was really fit and qualified according to norms to receive the BE Degree in Engineering?

47. "In his estimate, his report Ex.P.2152 was not attached. In Ex.P.2152 the date of his inspection was not mentioned. It is not mentioned in Ex.P.2152 who all did the inspection and who were all present at the time of the inspection...." -- Did he report anything properly in the previous paragraphs that he should report properly here? Wasnt he been saying only stories so far, and claim himself to be experienced, holding a BE degree, and staking claim to a respected academic program by pulling in the name of PSG College of Technology, Kovai here?

48. "... The item 108 is diesel generator. For that, he put Rs.6,55,000/- as the value rate, but he did not mention the brand name. For that also he did not mention the brand name. When they are taking the note, they wont value the articles. After verifying the rates in the market, they have prepared the value assessment list, they put the present market rate for the items 1 to 129 when they prepared the report i.e. Nov 1996, market rate value. They did not verify the rates with the rates in writing.." -- Again, isnt he just saying stories without doing anything by protocol or procedure?

49. "He does not know that the discounting for the wear and tear for the electrical devices in the income-tax department. He does not know that the discounting for the wear and tear of the electrical devices in property tax department. When they prepared the above mentioned four reports, they did not keep any public with them. When they inspect, they did not take any member of the public with them. He does not know that there is any government approved value for valuing the electrical devices and surveyors. He does not know whether his higher officers sent his four reports to any private values for verification. To the best of his knowledge, he did not send it." -- So, he does not know anything? Then, read together with previous paragraphs, why didnt they trash his opinions and refer him for a clinical investigation on his sanity and capability to discharge his duty as an official of the PWD?

50. On the basis of such and similar Prosecution Witnesses, was a case of corruption while in public office made out against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha due to a private complaint? Goodness !!! Why wasnt a test of sanity performed on such and similar prosecution witnesses? Pages and pages of Prosecution Witness testimony with NO substance in it? Would this even qualify as a fiction novel? Would this qualify as Trash? If it is qualified as trash, then how come a case of corruption while in public office was made out against the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha, based on such Prosecution Witnesses? Has there been a gross injustice meted out to Ms. J. Jayalalitha? Who are all going to apologise to the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha for having meted out such gross injustice to her? Is there going to be any compensation being awarded to the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha for having suffered without reason? If the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha has been implicated and convicted and imprisoned based on such trash valuation reports that helped to build a case of corruption while in public office against her wrongly, then is the complainant and all those who assisted him and all those who made out or setup or framed evidence against the defendant wrongly going to be implicated, convicted and imprisoned and made to suffer the same fate as the defendant was made to suffer wrongly? Will injustice meted out to the defendant Ms. J. Jayalalitha be set right through appropriate remedial action or compensation?



Back to Top of Page












Scientific Review of the Justice C.R. Kumarasamy Judgement (contd..)
Doesnt it raise more questions regarding the integrity of the processes of the concerned income tax department officials that were carried out against the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha? In short, who should have been prosecuted, the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha OR the concerned Income Tax Department Officials, their superior officers, and all those who networked with them with relevance to the case of the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha?


https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153068300481752



To be read together with previous scientific review comments on the same, posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto & backup copy available at http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement :



Ref: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/59037

Page 190/919 to 194/919

Quote ..." N. Sundararajan has deposed that from July 1996 till March 1998, he worked as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. He examined the income tax related files of Selvi. J. Jayalalitha and Thirumathi N. Sasikala from 1987-88 assessment year till 1996-97 financial year. The income tax return for the assessment year 1987-88 should have been submitted on or before 31.7.1987. But Selvi Jayalalitha filed returns for the year 1987-88 assessment year only on 3.12.1992. In this her self assessment tax of Selvi Jayalalitha she has remitted Rs.2,675/- on 13.11.1992. Subsequently, after the assessment order, she remitted Rs.1,11,672/- on 28.8.1995. In the month of March 1998, this assessment order was reopened. He reopened it after obtaining permission from the Income Tax Commissioner. It was reopened with a reason that she has not shown the agricultural income.



Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax return for the year 1988-89. It should have been filed before 31.7.1988. On 13.11.1992 as self assessment tax Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs.9,282/-. The Deputy Commissioner passed the assessment order for this year on 28.8.1995. Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs.5,54,200/- as tax. Later on, this file was reopened by him because of non disclosure of agricultural income.



On 16.11.1992, income tax return for the assessment year 1989-90 was filed. It should have been filed before 31.8.1989. On 13.11.1992, she remitted Rs.9,905/- as self assessment tax. On 28.8.1995, Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs. 8,08,256/- towards tax.



On 20.11.1992, Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax return for the assessment year 1990-1991. This return should have been filed within 31.08.1990. Self assessment tax of Rs.61,549/- was remitted on 21.11.1992. Deputy Commissioner passed the assesment order through Ex.P.2137.

.......

... The file was reopened for non disclosure of agricultural income.



On 20.11.1992 Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax for the assessment year 1991-92. Deputy Commissioner passed the assessment order vide Ex.P.2030. On 21.11.1992 Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs.3,78,065/- including interest as self assessment tax. After passing assessment, she remitted Rs.10 lakhs on 01.10.1994, Rs. 5 lakhs on 26.12.1994 and Rs. 7 lakhs on 21.1.1995. This file was also reopened for non disclosure of agricultural income.



On 23.11.1992, Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax return for the assessment year 1992-93. Self assessment tax of Rs.3,89,145/- on 23.11.1992. Ex.2140 assessment order was passed. In March 1998, for the same reason, he reopened it and on 28.3.2000, passed the reassessment order.



Selvi Jayalalitha did not file income tax return for the financial year 1993-94. Last date for filing was 31.8.1993. Therefore, on 9.2.1996, Deputy Commissioner passed ex parte order on 15.12.1992. Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs.5,23,757/- as advance tax. On 13.3.1996, Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs. 15,442/- as self assessment tax, on 16.3.1993 remitted Rs.3,49,171/- as advance tax.



On 23.9.1996 Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax return for the financial year 1994-95. Ex.P217 is the assessment order. Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs.87,158/- on 15.9.1993 as advance tax. On 15.12.1993, she remitted Rs.87,158/- and on 15.3.1994 she remitted Rs.1,16,212/-.



On 8.11.1996, Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax returns for the financial year 1995-96. She remitted Rs.87,158/- on 13.9.1994 and Rs.87,158/- on 12.12.1994 as advance tax. Assessment order was passed on 30.3.1999



On 18.11.1996, she filed income tax return for the financial year 1996-97. She remitted Rs.87,158/- on 13.9.1996 and Rs.87,158/- on 8.12.1996 and Rs.7.05 lakhs on 14.3.1996 as advance tax. On 30.3.1999, tax assessment order was passed.



For the financial year 1988-89, she filed incoe tax return on 30.11.1992. On 13.12.1992, she remitted Rs.89,618/- as self assessment tax. Ex.P2178 is the tax assessment order.



On 16.12.1992, she filed property tax return for the year 1989-90. On 13.11.1992, she remitted Rs.2,68,475/- as self assessment tax. On 20.11.1992, she filed property tax return for the year 1990-91. She remitted Rs.6,02,757/- as self assessment tax and remitted Rs.90,619/- as regular tax on 9.6.1995.



Property tax returns for the year 1991-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 was filed.



On 23.2.1993, Tmt. N. Sasikala filed income tax return for the year 1985-86. Similarly on 23.2.2993, she filed return for the year 1986-87. For the year 1987-88, she filed income tax return on 23.2.1993. She also filed income tax return for the assessment year 1988-89 on 23.2.1993. Assessment order was passed.



Ex.P2189 is receipt for having remitted Rs.2,42,241/- in the bank including interest. Ex.2191 is income tax return filed by second accused on 23.2.1993.



Similarly, she filed income tax return for the year 1992-93 on 23.2.1993 and for the year 1993-94 on 8.2.1996, she paid Rs.7,62,151/- as tax.



On 25.2.1993, she filed property tax return for the year 1985-86. For the year 1987-88, she filed property tax return. She paid tax Rs.7,486/-.



She filed income tax return for the year 1988-89 on 25.2.1993. Ex.P2206 is property tax return filed by 2nd accused on 25.2.1993 for the assessment year 1990-91. For the year 1991-92, she filed property tax return on 26.2.1993. Ex.2210 is the property tax return filed by the second accused on 26.2.1993 for the assessment year 1992-93.



During his cross examination, he states that he dont know whether Sri.P.Chidambaram, Finance Minister was opposed to Selvi Jayalalitha. To reopen the case, he took superior officer's permission.



He reopened the income tax return since agricultural income was not furnished." ... End of Quote



Read together with

http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Tutorials/33-various%20assessments.pdf

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1733517/

http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/pages/acts/income-tax-act.aspx

http://taxguru.in/income-tax/faqs-assessments-incometax-law.html

http://www.itatonline.org/articles_new/guide-to-the-law-on-reopening-of-assessments-us-147-of-the-income-tax-act/

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/story-behind-the-jayalalitha-chidambaram-rivalry/1/184729.html

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/jayalalithaa-acquittal-chidambaram-backs-spp-acharyas-advice-on-appeal/article7254870.ece

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/friend-father-a-philosopher-of-black-money-is-chidambaram

http://www.oneindia.com/2012/04/26/chidambaram-helped-son-in-corruption-subramanian-swamy.html

https://www.facebook.com/Indiacor/posts/749717961724558

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chidambaram-is-a-traitor-swamy/article1-750358.aspx

http://archive.financialexpress.com/news/p-chidambaram-fights-back-after-being-put-on-mat-over-corruption-by-cbi-cag/1193969

http://manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1749#.VeW8cMiqqko







---



The following concerns arise:



The word "accused" is used to refer to the defendants on Pages 193/919 and 194/919. Read together with earlier review comments posted at https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055071511752 , has the Income Tax Department also used the scientific principles of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in conjunction with Psychiatric Suggestion and Mind Control to force their opinion?



"He examined the income tax related files of Selvi. J. Jayalalitha and Thirumathi N. Sasikala from 1987-88 assessment year till 1996-97 financial year" -- On what basis was the income tax related files of Selvi. J. Jayalalitha and Thirumathi N. Sasikala was examined? Was there any special reason for it? Or was it routine? Under which Income tax Act, under which year's amendement, under which section were the income tax files examined? Was it checked whether there was any conflict on interest for examining the income tax files by the examiner? Was it ensured that there would be a fair examination of the income tax files? If so, under which Income tax Act, amendment and section was the fairness ensured in examination of the income tax files?



It is noted in multiple paragraphs that there has been a self-assessment done and self-assessment tax filed by Selvi J. Jayalalitha. However, these lines are followed with subsequent information that there has been an assessment order after that, and again she remitted tax again. Under what Section of the Income Tax Act was the assessment done? Was the assessment done under Section 143(1), 143(3), 144 or 147? Was the assessment done without calling the assessee (taxpayer)? Was any standard used in the scrutiny or was the assessment solely based on whether the income tax department official satisfied himself regarding various claims, deductions, etc., made by the taxpayer in the return on income? Was the assessment put up for acceptance to any higher official in the same Income tax department or presented before any higher level committee for acceptance or did the concerned income tax department official send it across to the taxpayer directly without any higher level consultation? What was the precaution taken by the concerned income tax department official to ensure that the assessment is done accurately? What was the precaution taken by the concerned income tax department official to ensure that the taxpayer is not exploited due to an erroneous assessment order? Further, did the concerned income tax official consider issuing notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, asking the taxpayer to produce documents (if any requested, and if at all requested)? Was such a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act issued to the taxpayer? If it was not issued, was there any reason for NOT issuing such a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act? Was it documented? If it was documented, was it presented? Further, did the concerned income tax department official consider whether suitable grounds existed for invoking Special Audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act? If suitable grounds did not exist for invoking Special Audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, were those reasons documented? Were they presented? Was any precaution taken to avoid oversight by the concerned income tax department official? Were those precautions that were taken, documented? Were they presented? Also, did the concerned income tax department official provide suitable allowance to the taxpayer for recourse to possibility of remedial action if the taxpayer is not satisfied with the assessment order? Or did the concerned income tax department official NOT provide suitable allowance to the taxpayer for recourse to possibility of remedial action if the taxpayer is not satisfied with the assessment order? Did the concerned income tax department official force the taxpayer for compliance to the assessment order without providing options for the taxpayer to state their reasoning? Further, did the concerned income tax department official provide facility for revision of the assessment order? It is noted again that subsequent to every assessment order, Selvi J. Jayalalitha paid tax again. It is not indicated whether the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha was provided any option for remedial action on the assessment order. Further it is noted that everytime an assessment order has been issued, the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha paid tax again subsequent to the assessment order. For the reason that Selvi J. Jayalalitha paid tax again everytime subsequent to the assessment order, did the concerned income tax department official issue an assessment order enhancing the tax to every item of self-assessment-tax paid by the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha?



It is noticed in multiple paragraphs that the assessment order was reopened with a reason that she has not shown the agricultural income. Attention is called to http://www.itatonline.org/articles_new/guide-to-the-law-on-reopening-of-assessments-us-147-of-the-income-tax-act/ to the content presented in the link cited along with specific emphasis to the following quote from that link "The law on reopening of assessments u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act is a complicated subject with a multitude of propositions and a plethora of judgements.........The scope and effect of a reopening of assessment is still shrouded in mystery even after various judgments of the Supreme Court and High courts. ..." Was the concerned income tax department official aware of the complexities in reopening an assessment? If the concerned income tax department official was aware of the complexities in reopening an assessment, was it done fairly or was it done unfairly? Is there any explanation or reasoning given? Was it used fairly against the taxpayer? Was it used unfairly against the taxpayer? Was it a premeditated act to cause inconvenience to the taxpayer? Was it a non-premeditated act? Was there any substantiation provided to establish that it was a non-premeditated act against the taxpayer?



"During his cross examination, he states that he dont know whether Sri.P.Chidambaram, Finance Minister was opposed to Selvi Jayalalitha." --- During the 1990s, Newspapers, TV, and other types of mass communication methods were available. Everyone would have been able to know about the political parties in INDIA, the party affiliations of each political leader, the bonhomies or hostilities between political parties, political leaders and intra-party hostilities too. Everyone would have known about political leader Sri. P. Chidambaram (referred to as Finance Minister) and the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha also a political leader. The speeches, news items and other events would serve to help anyone understand whether Sri. P. Chidambaram and Selvi J. Jayalalitha shared bonhomie or hostility. Even now, if a search on the internet is made regarding Sri. P. Chidambaram and Selvi J. Jayalalitha, it does yield articles, whose internet links are given above, and also other internet links which have not been given above. So, how could the concerned income tax department officials statement that "During his cross examination, he states that he dont know whether Sri.P.Chidambaram, Finance Minister was opposed to Selvi Jayalalitha." be accepted? Was the concerned income tax department official investigated for links to Sri. P. Chidambaram? Was the concerned income tax department official put through a "Lie Detector Test"? Was the reopening and assessments and other related activities instigated by Sri.P. Chidambaram? Was such a question entertained? Was it probed? Was it cleared beyond doubt or question that the reopening and assessments and other related activities were not instigated by Sri. P. Chidambaram? Was any safety or protection mechanism put in place for the defendant Selvi. J. Jayalalitha so that she should NOT be caused undue harm by Sri. P. Chidambaram due to divergent political views? If any safety or protection mechanism was put in place, was it recorded? If no safety or protection mechanism was not put in place, was it recorded?



"To reopen the case, he took superior officer's permission." --- Why? What was the reason? Was there any premeditated motive? Was it fair? Was any precautions against oversight taken? Were they recorded? Was it done on any whims or fancies? Was it done on any fair or unfair instruction from any other person related or unrelated? Was it recorded? Was it suitably left unrecorded? Was it investigated whether there was any conflict of interest with reference to the concerned income tax department official and his superior officer regarding the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha? With specific reference to the quote "The scope and effect of a reopening of assessment is still shrouded in mystery even after various judgments of the Supreme Court and High courts. " from http://www.itatonline.org/articles_new/guide-to-the-law-on-reopening-of-assessments-us-147-of-the-income-tax-act/ , doesnt it raise more questions regarding the integrity of the processes of the concerned income tax department officials that were carried out against the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha? In short, who should have been prosecuted, the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha or the concerned Income Tax Department Officials, their superior officers, and all those who networked with them with relevance to the case of the defendant Selvi J. Jayalalitha?



Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153201722396752


1. பிரதமர் மோடி குறிப்பிடுகிறார், அரசு தவறு இழைத்தால், நீதி துறை சரி செய்து தரும். ஆனால், நீதி துறையே தவறு இழைத்துவிட்டால், எதுவுமே பிழைக்காது.....மக்களுக்கு நீதி துரையின் மீது இருக்கும் நம்பிக்கை கெட்டுவிடும்.........பிரதமர் மோடி குறிப்பிட்டது போல, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டும் அந்த மின் கம்ப எழுப்புவதற்கு எதிராக செய்த கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் போன்றதா ?

--------------
செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிற்கு எதிராக செய்த கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில், சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி தன்னை ஒரு அரசியல் கட்சி தலைவராகவும், அரசியலில் செயலில் (Active) இருப்பதாகவும் பலர் அறிய கூறுகிறார் / பறைசாற்றுகிறார் / அறிவிக்கிறார்.
அதனை ஒரு பிரைவேட் (Private) கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டாக அறிவிக்கிறார்.
கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட்-அளவில் மட்டும் தான் பிரைவேட்'ஆ என்று கூறவில்லை.
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கும் செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிற்கும் முட்பகை இருந்ததா, அல்லது அந்த முட்பகையின் விளைவாக அந்த கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் எழுந்ததா என்பது குறிப்பிடப்படவில்லை.
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியும் செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவும், இருவரும் அரசியலில் இருப்பதால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி செய்த இந்த கம்ப்லாயின்ட்டினால், சுப்ரமணியன் சாமிக்கு இதனால் நன்மையையும், செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிற்கு தீமையும் இந்த கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டினால் விளையாது என்றும் குறிப்பிடப்படவில்லை.
இருவரும் (சுப்ரமணியன் சாமியும் செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவும்) அரசியலில் இருப்பதால், அரசியல் ரீதியாக சட்டசபையிலோ நாடாளுமன்றத்திலோ தீர்வு காண சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி முயற்சித்தாரா?
வேறு ஏதாவது அரசியல் மன்றத்தில் தீர்வு காண சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி முயற்சித்தாரா?
எந்த எந்த அரசியல் மன்றத்தில், அல்லது சட்டசபையில், அல்லது நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி தீர்வு பெற முயற்சித்தார் என்று ஒரு டிடெயில்டு ரிப்போர்ட் சமர்பித்தாரா?
அரசியல் மன்றங்களும், சட்டசபையும், நாடாளுமன்றமும் தீர்வு கொடுக்க ஜனநாயகத்தில் அதிகாரம் இருக்கும் பொழுது , சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி இதனை ஏன் நீதி மன்றத்தின் மூலம் தீர்வு காண எத்தனிக்கிறார் என்பதை பற்றி ஒரு ரிப்போர்ட் சமர்பித்தாரா?
அரசியல் மன்றங்களையும், சட்டசபையும், நாடாளுமன்றத்தையும் தாண்டி நீதி மன்றத்துக்கு அரசியல் தலைவரான சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி இந்த கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டை தாக்கல் செய்வதனால், "அரசியல் மன்றத்தின் மீதும், சட்டசபையின் மீதும், நாடாளுமன்றத்தின் மீதும் நம்பிக்கை தனக்கு போய்விட்டது, ஆதாலால் நீதி மன்றத்தை அனுகுகிறேன்" என்று சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ரிப்போர்ட் சமர்பித்தாரா?
ஒரு நீதிபதி தவறு இழைத்து விட்டால், அவர் மேல் நடவடிக்கை பரிந்துரை செய்து இம்பீச் (impeach) செய்யும் அதிகாரம் சட்டசபை / நாடாளுமன்றத்திற்கு இருக்கும் பொழுது, ஒரு அரசியல் தலைவரான சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி சட்டசபை / நாடாளுமன்றத்தை விட்டு எதற்காக நீதிமன்றத்தை அணுகவேண்டும்? சட்டசபையையும் நாடாளுமன்றத்தையும் மதிக்காமல் நீதிமன்றத்தில் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்ததற்காக சட்டசபை / நாடாளுமன்றம் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மீது ஏன் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வில்லை? தன் மீது நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க கூடாது என்று சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி சட்டசபையையும் நாடாளுமன்றத்தையும் கட்டாயப்படுத்தினாரா?
ஒவ்வொரு அரசியல் தலைவரும் இன்னொரு அரசியல் தலைவரை பற்றி நீதி மன்றத்தில் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்தால், நீதி துறை அத்தனையையும் கவனிக்க இயலுமா?
பிரதமர் மோடியின் வார்த்தைகளின் படி (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/technology-must-be-brought-in-judiciary-to-bring-about-qualitative-changes-modi/), ஐந்து நட்சத்திர தலைவர்கள் நீதிமன்றங்களை டைரெக்ட் செய்கின்றனரா? நீதிபதிகள் தெய்வத்தன்மை பொருந்திய ஒரு சேவை செய்கின்றனர், என்று பிரதமர் மோடி குறிப்பிடுகிறார். அப்படி இருக்கும் பொழுது, ஐந்து நட்சத்திர தலைவர்களும் மற்றவர்களும் நீதித்துறையை டைரெக்ட் செய்கின்றனரா, பலனுணர்வு (perception) டைரெக்ட் செய்கின்றதா என்று நீதித்துறை தன்னை தானே அசெஸ்மென்ட் செய்ய வேண்டும் என்று பிரதமர் மோடி குறிப்பிடுகிறார்.
மெய்மைக்கும் பலனுணர்வுக்கும் (perception) வித்யாசம் உண்டு. ஆனால் இரண்டுக்கும் இடையே வித்யாசம் காண்பது மிகவும் கடினம். சட்டத்தின் படி நீதி வழங்க இயலும். ஆயினும் மெய்மைக்கும் பலனுணர்வுக்கும் (perception) இடையே உள்ள உண்மையை கண்டறிந்து நீதி வழங்குவது கடினம். ஐந்து நட்சத்திர தலைவர்கள் நீதி துறையை டைரெக்ட் செய்கின்றனரா என்று உணர வேண்டும். குழப்பம் ஏற்படுத்திவிட்டால், பலனுணர்வு உள்ள ஒரு சூழ்நிலையில் நீதி வழங்குவது கடினம் என்று பிரதமர் மோடி குறிப்பிடுகிறார்.
பிரதமர் மோடி ஒரு உதாரணம் கூறுகிறார். ஒரு உயர் நீதி மன்றம் மின்தடையை அனுபவிக்க வேண்டியது ஆயிற்று, ஏன் என்றால், ஒரு ஐந்து நடசத்திர தலைவர் ஒரு மின் கம்பம் எழுப்ப தடை வாங்கியதால்.
ஆதலால், பிரதமர் மோடி குறிப்பிடுகிறார், அரசு தவறு இழைத்தால், நீதி துறை சரி செய்து தரும். ஆனால், நீதி துறையே தவறு இழைத்துவிட்டால், எதுவுமே பிழைக்காது. மக்களுக்கு நீதி துரையின் மீது இருக்கும் நம்பிக்கை கெட்டுவிடும்.
இவற்றை எல்லாம் சேர்த்து ஆராயும் பொழுது,
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கு தகுந்த காரணி இருந்ததா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி செய்த கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டிற்கு தகுந்த வேல்யு (Value/Merit) இருந்ததா?
பிரதமர் மோடி குறிப்பிட்டது போல, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டும் அந்த மின் கம்ப எழுப்புவதற்கு எதிராக செய்த கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் போன்றதா ? அதனால் உயர் நீதி மன்றத்துக்கு கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் மூலம் எழுப்பப்பட்ட மின் தடைகளின் போல், மாநிலமும் / நாடும் முன்னேற்றத்தில் தடை ஏற்பட வேண்டும் என்பதற்காக, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியும் தன்னுடைய கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டினால் மாநிலமும் / நாடும் முன்னேற்றத்தில் தடை ஏற்படுத்த வேண்டும் என்பதற்காக கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்தாரா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் உண்மையின் மீது இருந்ததா அல்லது பலனுணர்வின் (perception) மீது நின்றதா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நீதி துறையை கட்டாயபடுத்தி தன்னுடைய கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டை ஏற்று கொள்ள செய்தாரா?
நீதி துறை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியினால் கட்டாயப்படுத்த பட கூடாது என்பதற்காக ஏதேனும் முயற்சிகள் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டதா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் எந்த தவறு கூட சிறிதளவேனும் இல்லாமல் இருந்ததா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டை ஏற்று கொள்ளும் பொழுது, மக்களுக்கு நீதி துரையின் மீது நம்பிக்கை குறைந்து விட கூடாது என்பதற்காக ஏதேனும் முயற்சி மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டதா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியை கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்ய விட்டது சரியா? முறையா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்தது சரியா? முறையா?

----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053205866752






Back to Top of Page












https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153201940886752



2. செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவின் மீது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்த சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய கம்ப்ளெயின்ட்டில் தன்னை தானே புகழ்வதற்கு எத்தனித்து தன்னை தானே பரிகசித்து கொண்டாரோ?

அவர் எழுதியுள்ள ஒரு வாக்கியம்
Page 18/919
Quote "2. The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life. " End of Quote
இந்த வாக்கியத்தை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னை தானே புகழ்வதற்கு உபயோகப்படுத்தி இருக்கலாம்.
அந்த ஆங்கில வாக்கியத்தை ஆராய்ச்சி செய்ய முயற்சிக்கும் பொழுது, முதலில் அதன் அர்த்தத்தை தெளிவு படுத்தி கொள்ள வேண்டும்.
ஆக்ஸ்போர்டு அகராதியை கொண்டு காணும் பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி தன்னை பற்றி கூறிக்கொள்ளும் பொழுது, தான் ஊழலை ஒழிக்க
சீரான தீவிர ஆர்வம் காட்டி கொண்டு இருப்பதாக கூறுகிறார்.
இந்த ஊழல் ஒழிப்பு சீரான தீவிர ஆர்வம் எதில் காட்டி கொண்டு இருக்கிறார் என்பதை அவர் கூற்று படி பார்த்தல், அது சமூகத்தின் ஒரு அம்சமாக காட்டபடுகின்றது. ஆயினும், சமூகத்தில் அப்படி ஒரு அம்சம் இருப்பதாக உலகப்புகழ் பெற்ற ஆக்ஸ்போர்டு அகராதி எதையும் குறிக்கவில்லை.
அப்படி என்றால் அப்படி ஒரு அம்சமே சமூகத்தில் இருக்காது.
இல்லாத ஒரு அம்சத்தில் எப்படி ஊழல் ஒழிப்பு சீரான தீவிர ஆர்வம் காட்ட இயலும்?
செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவின் மீது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்த சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய கம்ப்ளெயின்ட்டில் தன்னை தானே புகழ்வதற்கு எத்தனித்து தன்னை தானே பரிகசித்து கொண்டாரோ?





----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053228221752





Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153202021931752


3. செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிற்கு எதிராக சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில், மீண்டும் தன்னை தானே புகழ எத்தனித்து, தன்னுடைய மன நலத்தை பற்றி மிக பெரிய ஐயங்களை மற்றவர் மனதில் தோற்றுவிக்கிராரோ? அப்படி தோற்றுவிக்கும் பொழுது, அதற்கு உரிய மருத்துவ சான்றிதழ்களையும் வழங்கவேண்டும் அல்லவா, அவர் மன நலம் சரியாக தான் இருக்கின்றது என்பதற்காக? வழங்கினாரா? நீதி துறைக்கு சமர்பித்தாரா?

கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, இவ்வாறு கூறியதாக இருக்கின்றது.
Page 18/919

Quote… “2. The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life. Alarmed at the high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power for achieving the goal for accumulating wealth to the level of "Everest" that has been taking place in the state of Tamil Nadu, the complainant is taking all steps to curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is his home State of Tamil Nadu… End of Quote
இதனை ஆய்வு செய்யும் பொழுது....
முதலில் அதன் அர்த்தத்தை ஆராய்வதற்காக ஆக்ஸ்போர்டு அகராதியின் உதவி மீண்டும் நாடப்பட்டது.
அர்த்தங்களை அங்கு அங்கு சேர்த்து, வாக்கியத்தை தெளிவாக்கும் பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கூறியதன் அர்த்தம், ஆக்ஸ்போர்டு அகராதியின் படி:
"கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்பவர், அவர் கூற்று படி, கவலை, பதட்டம், அமைதியின்மை ஆகியவற்றை உணர்கிறார் அல்லது வெளிக்காட்டுகிறார். எதை பற்றி என்றால், ஒரு விளைவை பற்றி. அந்த விளைவின் மீது நம்பிக்கையும் வைக்க இயலாது, அறியவும் இயலாது, விளைவு நிச்சயமானதும் அல்ல."
ஒரு விளைவு ஏற்படும் என்று அதன் மீது நம்பிக்கையும் வைக்க இயலாது. அதை அறியவும் இயலாது. அது நிறைவேறுவது நிச்சயமானதும் அல்ல. இந்த சூழ்நிலையில், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, நிச்சயமில்லாத நிறைவேறும் என்ற நம்பிக்கை வைக்க இயலாத, அறியவும் இயலாத ஒரு விளைவின் மீது, அவர் கூற்று படி கவலை, பதட்டம், அமைதியின்மை ஆகியவற்றை உணர்கிறார் அல்லது வெளிக்காட்டுகிறார்.
மேலும், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி "high degree of corruption, misuse of power and abuse of power" என்று சில வார்த்தைகளையும் உபயோகப்படுத்தி இருக்கிறார். இவை யாவும் பலனாகாத (Abstract) சில சொற்றொடர்கள். மேலும், அவை வரையறுக்கப்படவில்லை, பண்புரீதியாகவோ அளவைகுரியதாகவோ விவரிக்கப்படவில்லை. மேலும் அவை அலங்கார சொல்லகராதி அல்லது பாஷாஞானம் அல்லது பாஷா வஸ்தீரணம் என்ற அலங்கார பொருளாகவே கையாள இயலும் இந்த இடத்தில், ஏனென்றால் அவை வரையறுக்கப்படவில்லை, பண்புரீதியாகவோ அளவைகுரியதாகவோ விவரிக்கப்படவில்லை.
எல்லாவற்றையும் இணைத்து பார்க்கும் பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய கூற்று படி, வரையறுக்கப்படாத, பண்புரீதியாக அளவைகுரியதாக விவரிக்கபடாத சிலவற்றினால், ஏற்படுமோ அல்லது ஏற்படாதோ என்று விவரிக்காத தெரியாத ஆபத்தின்பால், அவர் கூற்று படி, கவலை, பதட்டம், அமைதியின்மை ஆகியவற்றை உணர்கிறார் அல்லது வெளிக்காட்டுகிறார்.
தன்னை புகழ்வதற்கு எத்தனித்து, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் இவற்றை பதிவிடும் பொழுது, அதனை ஆய்வு செய்யும் பொழுது, அர்த்தங்கள் இப்படி வரும்பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி அறியாமல் தன்னுடைய மன நல குறையை தன்னை அறியாமல் வெளிப்படுத்துகிறாரா அல்லது பறைசாற்றுகிறாரா?
அப்படி என்றால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மன நல மருத்துவமனையை நாடி இருக்க வேண்டுமா அல்லது நீதி துறையை நாடி இருக்க வேண்டுமா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, இந்த சூழ்நிலையில் நீதி துறையை நாடி இருந்தால், அவர் ஏதாவது மருத்துவ பிட்னஸ் (Medical Fitness) சான்றிதழ் சமர்பித்தாரா, இது நீதி துறை கையாள வேண்டியது, மன நல மருத்துவமனை கையாள வேண்டியது அல்ல என்று?
அப்படி ஒரு மருத்துவ பிட்னஸ் (Medical Fitness) சான்றிதழ் சமர்பித்தார் என்றால், அந்த மருத்துவ பிட்னஸ் சான்றிதழ், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நீதி துறையிடம் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் அளவுக்கு அவரிடம் மருத்துவ பிட்னஸ் உள்ளது என்று அந்த மருத்துவ பிட்னஸ் (Medical Fitness) சான்றிதழில் சுட்டி காட்டி இருந்ததா?


----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053232241752


Back to Top of Page




https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153202206646752


4. சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நீதி துறைக்கும் அதிகாரிகளுக்கும் தவறான வழி காட்ட முயற்சி செய்தாரா? தவறான வழி காட்டினாரா?

Page 18/919
Quote… “2. The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life. Alarmed at the high degree of corruption and misuse of power and abuse of power for achieving the goal for accumulating wealth to the level of "Everest" that has been taking place in the state of Tamil Nadu, the complainant is taking all steps to curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is his home State of Tamil Nadu… End of Quote
இதில் சில கேள்விகள் எழுகின்றன.
அதிக அளவு சொத்து சேர்ப்பது தான் மிக உயர்ந்த அளவு ஊழலின் மற்றும் அதிகார துஷ்பிரயோகத்தின் இலக்காகும் என்று சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி எப்படி கண்டு பிடித்தார்?
இதனை கண்டு பிடிக்க, என்ன பகுப்பாய்வு அல்லது பகுத்தாய்முறை சார்ந்த ஆய்வு மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டதா?
எவரஸ்ட் என்பது கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் வரையறுக்கப்படவில்லை. இமாலய மலைகளில் இருக்கும் எவரஸ்ட் மலையா அல்லது இது வேறு ஏதாவது ஒரு எவரெஸ்ட்டா?
அல்லது இது வேறு ஏதாவது ஒரு எவரெஸ்ட் என்றால், கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் ஏதாவது குறிப்பு கொடுக்கப்பட்டு இருக்கின்றதா, இது வேறு எவரெஸ்ட் என்று?
சொத்து குவிப்பு எவரெஸ்ட் அளவுக்கு சொத்து சேர்க்க வேண்டும் என்பது தான் இலக்கு அல்லது நோக்கம் என்பதற்கு சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஏதாவது ஆதாரம் கிடைக்க பெற்றாரா?
அதற்காக ஏதாவது ஆதாரம் கிடைக்கப்பெற்றால், அதே ஆதாரத்தை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டுடன் இணைத்தாரா, கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் பொழுது?
ஆதாரம் இணைக்கபடாவிட்டால், ஆதாராம் இணைக்காததற்கு ஏதாவது காரணம் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டதா?
ஆதாரம் இணைக்கபடாததற்கு காராணம் குறிப்பிடாமல் இருந்தால், சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி வேறு ஏதாவது வெளியில் சொல்லாத காரணத்தினால் ஆதாரத்தை இணைக்கவில்லையோ கம்ப்லேயிண்டுடன்?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி இமாலயத்தில் உள்ள எவரெஸ்ட் மலையை குறிப்பிட்டு இருந்தால், சில கேள்விகள் எழுகின்றன. அவை:
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தமிழகத்தில் இருந்து எவரெஸ்ட் மலை அளவுக்கு நிலப்பரப்பு அளவுக்கு சொத்து சேர்க்க முற்பட்டது என்று கூற எத்தனித்தாரா?
அல்லது எவரெஸ்ட் மலையின் கீழே இருந்து எவரெஸ்ட் மலையின் உச்சி அளவுக்கு சொத்து சேர்க்க முற்பட்டது என்று கூற எத்தனித்தாரா?
அல்லது எவரெஸ்ட் மலையின் எடை அல்லது பாரம் அளவுக்கு சொத்து சேர்க்க எத்தனிக்க பட்டது என்று கூற முயற்சி செய்கிறாரா? அப்படியென்றால், எவரெஸ்ட் மலையின் எடையை அளந்தாரா? அளந்ததற்கு ஏதாவது ஆதாராம் சமர்பித்தாரா? எவரெஸ்ட் மலையின் எடையை அளக்கவில்லை என்றால், வேறு ஏதாவது ஆய்வு முறையின் மூலம் எவரெஸ்ட் மலையின் எடையை கணக்கிட்டாரா, அதற்கான ஆதாரம் சமர்பித்தாரா?
எதற்குமே ஆதாரம் சமர்பிக்கவில்லை என்றால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, சொத்து குவிப்பு எவரெஸ்ட் அளவுக்கு சொத்து சேர்க்க வேண்டும் என்ற குறிக்கோளுடன், மிக உயர்ந்த அளவு ஊழல் மூலம் அதிகார துஷ்பிரயோகம் மூலம் முயர்ச்சிக்கபட்டது என்று எப்படி கூறலாம்?
எந்த ஆதாரமும் ஆய்வும் இல்லாமல் இவ்வாறு கூறியதால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நீதி துறைக்கும் அதிகாரிகளுக்கும் தவறான வழிகாட்ட முயற்சி செய்தாரா? தவறான வழி காட்டினாரா?






----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053234061752




Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153202442671752


5. சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நேர்த்தியாக திட்டம் வகுத்தாரோ? நீதி மன்றத்தின் மீது சவாரி செய்ய? ஏதாவது தவறு நேர்ந்தால், நீதிமன்றமே பொறுப்பாகும், யாரும் அவரை (சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியை) பழி கூறா வண்ணம்?

Page 18/919

Quote… “the complainant is taking all steps to curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is his home State of Tamil Nadu” … End of Quote
Quote1… “The complainant has been taking a consistent and serious interest in eliminating corruption from public life” … End of Quote1.
கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் உள்ள இவ்வரிகள், கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்த சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய இல்ல மாநிலமான தமிழ் நாட்டில், ஊழலை ஒழிக்க அல்லது கட்டுபடுத்த எல்லா முயற்சிகளும் எடுத்து வருவதாக கூறுகின்றது.
இதில் சில கேள்விகள் எழுகின்றன.
சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய இல்ல மாநிலமான தமிழ் நாட்டில் ஊழலை கட்டுபடுத்த எல்லா முயற்சிகளும் எடுத்து வருவதாக கூறுகின்றார் அல்லது கூற எத்தனிக்கின்றார்.
ஆனால், சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி, ஊழலை கட்டுபடுத்த என்ன என்ன முயற்சிகள் எடுத்து வருகின்றார் என்பதை பட்டியல் இட்டு விலாவரியாக எடுத்து உரைத்திருக்கின்றாரா?
சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி எந்த அதிகாரத்தின் அடிப்படையில் ஊழலை ஒழிக்க முயற்சிகள் எடுத்து வருகின்றார் என்பதை விளக்கி இருக்கிறாரா?
இந்தியாவின் அரசியல் சாசனம் சுப்ரமணியன் சாமிக்கு ஊழலை கட்டுபடுத்த அதிகாரம் வழங்கி இருந்தால், அரசியல் சாசனத்தின் எந்த பகுதிகள் அவருக்கு இந்த அதிகாரங்களை வழங்கி இருக்கின்றது என்பதை பட்டியலிட்டு இருக்கிறாரா அல்லது மேற்கோள் காட்டி இருக்கிறாரா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஒரு தேசிய அளவு அரசியல் தலைவர், அவர் கூற்றுப்படி. அவர் ஏன், அவரது இல்ல மாநிலமான தமிழ் நாட்டின் மீது இவ்வளவு அக்கறை செலுத்தி இருக்கறார் என்பதை உறுதி படுத்தி இருக்கிறாரா அல்லது நியாயப்படுத்தி இருக்கிறாரா? எல்லா தேசிய தலைவர்களும், தங்களுடைய இல்ல மாநிலங்களை மட்டுமே கவனித்து கொண்டால், தேச நலனை யார் கவனிப்பார்கள்? அல்லது சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி தான் ஒரு மாநில தலைவர் மட்டுமே, தேச நலனில் எந்த அக்கறையும் தனக்கு இல்லை என்று அறிக்கை இட்டு இருக்கிறாரா? அப்படி என்றால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியை மாநில அளவு மட்டுமேயான தலைவர் என்று அறிவிக்க தேர்தல் கமிஷன் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டுமா?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஊழலை கட்டு படுத்த எல்லா முயற்சிகளும் எடுக்கிறார் என்றால், பின்னர் ஏன் அவர் ஒரு கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் பதிவு செய்ய வேண்டும்?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஊழலை கட்டுபடுத்த எல்லா முயற்சிகளும் எடுத்து இருக்கும் பொழுதும், அவர் ஒரு கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் பதிவு செய்ய எத்தனிக்கிறார் என்றால், அவர் தன்னுடைய ஊழல் கட்டுபடுத்தும் முயற்சியில் தோல்வி அடைந்துவிட்டதாக தானே அர்த்தம், அதனை அறிவித்தாரா? எங்கு, எப்படி அவர் தன்னுடைய ஊழல் கட்டுபடுத்தும் முயற்சியில் தோல்வி அடைந்ததாக அறிவித்தாரா?
தோல்வி அடைந்த தன்னுடைய ஊழல் கட்டுபடுத்தும் முயற்ச்சியை எப்படி தொடரமுடியும் என்று எண்ணுகிறார் என்பதை சுட்டி காட்டி இருக்கிறாரா?
தான் தோல்வி அடைந்ததில் நீதிமன்றம் எப்படி ஜெயிக்கும் என்று சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி எதிர்பார்க்கிறார்?
அப்படியானால் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஒரு அரசியல் தலைவர் என்ற அந்தஸ்தில் தோல்வி அடைந்து விட்டாரோ?
இவ்வளவு செருக்குடன் தன்னை தானே பிரகடனப்படுத்தி கொண்ட சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டின் மேல் நீதி விசாரணையும் நீதி மன்ற நடைமுறைகள் நிறைவேறும் பொழுது, அந்த சூழ்நிலையில், ஜெயித்தால் யாருக்கு பெருமை ? தோற்றால் யாருக்கு சிறுமை?
மேலே உள்ள பத்திகளை கூர்ந்து கவனித்தால், வழக்கு ஜெயித்தால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி எல்லா பெருமையும் தனதாக்கி கொள்வார். வழக்கு தோற்றால், நீதி மன்றத்தின் பெயர் தான் கெடும், வழக்கை செம்மையாக நடத்தவில்லை என்ற பழியுடன், ஏன் எனில், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னுடைய வார்த்தைகளினால் தன்னை தானே ஊழல் ஒழிப்பு மற்றும் ஊழல் கட்டுபடுத்தும் நாயாகனாக கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் பொழுதே முன் ஜாக்கிரதையாக அறிவித்து கொண்டார்?
இவை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் எண்ணங்களின் பிரதிபலிப்போ? சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் உள்நோக்கங்கள் சுத்தமாக இருப்பதாக இதன் மூலம் தெரிகின்றதா?
இல்லையென்றால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஏன் ஒன்றுக்கு இருமுறை யோசிக்கவில்லை, நீதி துறையிடம் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்வதற்கு முன்னர்?





----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153053747551752





Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153203097856752


6. சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் தன்னுடைய கருத்தை வலியுறுத்த அறிவியல் சார்ந்த டெக்னிக்களான நியுரோ லின்குவிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் மற்றும் அதனோடு சேர்த்து சைகியாட்றிக் சஜ்ஜெஷன் மற்றும் மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் ஆகியவற்றை பிரயோகித்தாரா ? இவற்றை எல்லாம் பிரயோகித்து தான் சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி தன்னுடைய கருத்தை வலியுறுத்தினாரா?

Page 18/919
Quote… “The accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha has become the Chief Minister on 24.06.1991” … End of Quote
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் இந்த வாக்கியத்தை ஆய்வு செய்யும் பொழுது நிறைய கேள்விகள் எழுந்தன...
ஒரு கிரிமினல் வழக்கில் பிரதிவாதி அக்யுஸ்ட் (Accused) ஆவார், எப்பொழுது என்றால் பிரதிவாதியின் மீது குற்றம் மெய்ப்பிக்கப்பட்டவுடனோ அல்லது சிறையில் அடைக்கபட்டவுடனோ, எது முதலில் நிகழ்ந்தாலும்.
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவை, கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் பொழுதே அக்யுஸ்ட் (Accused) என்று எப்படி கூறலாம்?
அப்படி இருந்தும், அவர் பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவை கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் பொழுதே அக்யுஸ்ட் என்று முத்திரை குத்துகிறார் என்றால், அதில் அர்த்தங்கள் இருக்க வேண்டும் அல்லவா?
இதனை புரிந்து கொள்ளவேண்டும் என்றால், அறிவியலில் நியுரோ லின்குயிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் (Neuro Linguistic Programming) என்ற ஒரு பிரிவு உண்டு. இதனை சைகியாட்ரி'இல் (Psychiatry) உள்ள சஜெஸ்ஷன் (Suggestion) மற்றும் மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் (Mind Control) உடன் சேர்த்து பார்க்கும் பொழுது, கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் அளவிலேயே சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஏன் பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவை குற்றம் மெய்ப்பிபதற்கும் முன்னரே சிறையில் அடைப்பதற்கும் முன்னரே, ஏன் செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவை அக்யுஸ்ட் என்று அழைத்து மற்றவர் மனதிலும் செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவை பிரதிவாதியாக பார்க்கவிடாமல் அக்யுஸ்ட்'ஆக பார்க்க வைக்க முயற்சித்தார் என்பது புரியும்...
நியுரோ லின்குயிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் மற்றும் சைகியாட்ரி சஜெஸ்ஷன் மற்றும் சைகியாட்ரி மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் என்ற மூன்று அறிவியல் டெக்நீக்'களை (Technique) அறிவியல் பூர்வமாக உபயோகித்தால், எவரையும் யாரையும் ஒரு விஷயத்தை நம்ப வைக்க இயலும், அந்த நம்பிக்கையின் மேல் எழும் சில எண்ண ஓட்டங்களை ஒரு திசையில் செலுத்துவதற்கு இயலும், மேலும், எண்ண ஓட்டங்கள் சில திசைகளில் சென்றால் சில முடிவுகள் தான் எடுக்க முடியும் என்ற கூற்றுக்கு ஏற்ப, இந்த அறிவியல் டெக்நீக்களை திறமையாக கையாண்டால் மற்றவர் என்ன முடிவு எடுக்க வேண்டும் என்பதற்கு ஏற்ப சில எண்ண விதைகளை தூவி விட்டாலே, அது அது அதன் வழியில் ஓடி, முடிவுகள் தானே எடுக்கப்படும்.
இங்கு சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி இதனை கையாள்வதால், அவர் என்ன முடிவுகள் எடுக்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்று எத்தனிக்கிறாரோ, மற்றவர்களை அதே முடிவுகளை எடுக்க வைக்க முடியும்.
இப்பொழுது, முன்னே உள்ள பத்திகளை மீண்டும் ஒரு முறை வாசித்தால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் தன்னுடைய கருத்தை வலியுறுத்த அறிவியல் சார்ந்த டெக்னிக்களான நியுரோ லின்குவிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் மற்றும் அதனோடு சேர்த்து சைகியாட்றிக் சஜ்ஜெஷன் மற்றும் மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் ஆகியவற்றை பிரயோகித்தாரா ? இவற்றை எல்லாம் பிரயோகித்து தான் சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி தன்னுடைய கருத்தை வலியுறுத்தினாரா? இவற்றை உபயோகப்படுத்தி, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா கண்டிப்பாக குற்றம் மெய்ப்பிக்கபட்டு சிறையில் அடைக்கபடவேண்டும் என்பதற்காக அறிவியல் டேக்நீக்களை உபயோகப்படுத்தி, அனைவரையும் தன்னுடைய குறிக்கோளை நிறைவேற்றி தருவதற்கு அவர்களை அவர்களது மனதளவில் தனக்கு அடிமை ஆக்கினாரா, அவர் எண்ணிய காரியங்களை நிறைவேற்ற?



----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055071511752






Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153203262481752


7. இவை அனைத்தும் என்றாவது ஒரு நாள் வெளிவரும் பொழுது இதனுடைய பின் விளைவுகள் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மீது விழும் என்று அவர் அறிந்து இருக்கவில்லையா? அல்லது மக்கள் அவ்வளவு முட்டாள் என்று மக்களை குறைத்து மதிப்பிட்டாரா, சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி?

Page 18/919
Quote… “The accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha has become the Chief Minister on 24.06.1991. The whole of Tamil Nadu expected good and able administration, but their hope vanished since the accused Ms. J. Jayalalitha instead of governing the State for the welfare of the people at large.....” … End of Quote
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, மொத்த தமிழ் நாடும் செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிடம் நல்லாட்சி எதிர்பார்த்தது என்று அறிவிக்கிறார்?
மொத்த தமிழ் நாடும், செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிடம் நல்லாட்சி எதிர்பார்த்தது என்று சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கு எப்படி தெரிந்தது?
தேர்தலில் ஜெயித்த எல்லாரிடமும் தமிழ் நாட்டு மக்கள் நல்லாட்சி எதிர்பார்த்ததாக சரித்திரம் உண்டா?
ஒவ்வொரு வேட்பாளரின் தகுதியும் செயல் திறனும் பற்றிய தகவல் சிறிதளவு கூட மக்களுக்கு தெரியாமல் இருக்கும்?
அப்படி இருக்கும் பொழுது, தமிழ் நாட்டு மக்கள் செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிடம் நல்லாட்சி எதிர்பார்த்தனர் என்றால், சில கேள்விகள் எழுகின்றன. அவை:
தமிழ் நாடு மக்கள் ஏன் செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிடம் நல்லாட்சி எதிர்பார்த்தனர்?
செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மிகவும் சிறந்த நிர்வாக திறனை வெளிபடுத்தி இருந்தாரா? ஆதலால், மக்கள் செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா நல்லாட்சி தருவார் என்று நம்பினாரா?
மக்கள் ஆதாரமில்லாத நம்பிக்கை செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா மீது வைத்து இருந்தனர் என்று கூறுவதற்கு வாய்ப்பு இல்லை.
ஆயினும், மக்கள் செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மீது நல்லாட்சி தருவார் என்ற நம்பிக்கை வைத்து இருந்திருந்தால், அது முந்தய அனுபவங்களினாலும் மட்டுமே நம்பிக்கை வர கூடும்.
மக்களுக்கு செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா மீது நல்லாட்சி தருவார் என்ற நம்பிக்கை இருக்கும் பொழுது, அது சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கும் தெரியும் பொழுது, வேறு சில கேள்விகளையும் எழுப்புகின்றது.
மக்களுக்கு செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா நல்லாட்சி தருவார் என்ற நம்பிக்கை இருக்கின்றது என்று சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கு எப்படி தெரிந்தது?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஏதாவது அறிவியல் ஆராய்ச்சி அல்லது ஆய்வு நடத்தினாரா, மக்களின் நம்பிக்கையை கண்டறிய?
ஆயினும், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி இப்படி பட்ட ஒரு அறிவியல் ஆராய்ச்சி அல்லது ஆய்வு நடத்தி மக்களின் நம்பிக்கையை தெரிந்து கொண்டதாக குறிப்பிடவில்லை.
இந்த இடத்தில், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, தன்னை பற்றி வேறு ஒரு இடத்தில் முன்னர் கூறியதை நினைவு படுத்தின் கொள்ள வேண்டும்.
Page 17/919 & 18/919
Quote1 “ The private complaint filed by the complainant- Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, Janatha Party,....
….The complainant above named states as follows:-
The Complainant is in active political life,...” End of Quote1
கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் நேரத்தில் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி ஒரு தேசிய அளவு அரசியல் கட்சியின் தலைவராக இருந்திருக்கின்றார். மேலும், அரசியலிலும் இருந்து இருக்கிறார்.
இவை அனைத்தையும் சேர்த்து பார்க்கும் பொழுது, ஒரு தேசிய அளவு அரசியல் கட்சி தலைவரான சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, எந்த ஒரு அறிவியல் ஆராய்ச்சியோ ஆய்வோ செய்யாமல், செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா நல்லாட்சி தருவார் என்ற நம்பிக்கை மக்கள் வைத்து இருக்கின்றனர் என்பதை அறிந்து இருக்கிறார்.
அப்படியானால் மக்கள் செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா மீது வைத்த நம்பிக்கை அவ்வளவு அதிகமாக இருந்து இருக்க வேண்டும், இன்னொரு தேசிய அளவு அரசியல் கட்சி தலைவரான சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கவனத்தை ஈர்க்க.
இந்த சூழ்நிலையில் கான்ப்ளிக்ட் ஆப் இண்டரெஸ்ட் (Conflict of Interest) உருவாகும் அல்லவா?
இந்த கான்ப்ளிக்ட் ஆப் இண்டரெஸ்ட் (Conflict of Interest) உருவானதால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி எப்படி செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா மீது புகார் அல்லது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் பதிவு செய்ய முடியும்? சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி எப்படி ஒரு புகார்-தாரராக ஆக முடியும்?
அதற்கு மேல், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி தான் அரசியலில் இருப்பதாக குறிப்பிட்டும் இருந்ததால், கான்ப்ளிக்ட் ஆப் இண்டரெஸ்ட் (Conflict of Interest) உருவானதால், அதையும் மீறி சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா மீது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் பதிவு செய்தால், இவை அனைத்தும் என்றாவது ஒரு நாள் வெளிவரும் பொழுது இதனுடைய பின் விளைவுகள் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மீது விழும் என்று அவர் அறிந்து இருக்கவில்லையா? அல்லது மக்கள் அவ்வளவு முட்டாள் என்று மக்களை குறைத்து மதிப்பிட்டாரா, சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி?




----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055276091752





Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153203338071752


8. சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி பல்வேறு இடங்களில் பல்வேறு நேரங்களில் தன்னுடைய கருத்தை வலியுறுத்த அறிவியல் சார்ந்த டெக்னிக்களான நியுரோ லின்குவிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் மற்றும் அதனோடு சேர்த்து சைகியாட்றிக் சஜ்ஜெஷன் மற்றும் மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் ஆகியவற்றை பிரயோகித்தாரா, தனக்கு அரசியல் லாபம் ஏற்படவேண்டும் என்பதற்காக? இதனை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, இந்த வழக்கில் மட்டும் தான் பிரயோகித்தாரா, அல்லது தேசத்தில் வெவ்வேறு வழக்குகளில் தன்னை தானே ஈடுபடுத்தி கொண்ட சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, இதே தான் மீண்டும் மீண்டும் செய்து தன்னுடைய அரசியல் லாபத்திற்காக அனைவரையும் அவர்கள் அறியாமல் மனதளவில் அடிமை படுத்தி அனைத்தையும் நாசம் செய்தாரா, தன்னுடைய அரசியல் லாபத்திற்காக?

இதனை இலக்கம் 6. பதிவுடன் (https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153203097856752 )
சேர்த்து வாசிக்க வேண்டும்.
வார்த்தை ஜாலத்தையும் அறிவியல் சார்ந்த டெக்னிக்களான நியுரோ லின்குவிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் மற்றும் அதனோடு சேர்த்து சைகியாட்றிக் சஜ்ஜெஷன் மற்றும் மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் ஆகியவற்றை பிரயோகித்து சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி இதனை கையாள்வதால், அவர் என்ன முடிவுகள் எடுக்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்று எத்தனிக்கிறாரோ, மற்றவர்களை அதே முடிவுகளை எடுக்க வைக்க முடியும்.
இப்பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் தன்னுடைய கருத்தை வலியுறுத்த அறிவியல் சார்ந்த டெக்னிக்களான நியுரோ லின்குவிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் மற்றும் அதனோடு சேர்த்து சைகியாட்றிக் சஜ்ஜெஷன் மற்றும் மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் ஆகியவற்றை பிரயோகித்தாரா ? இவற்றை எல்லாம் பிரயோகித்து தான் சுப்ரமணியன் சாமி தன்னுடைய கருத்தை வலியுறுத்தினாரா? இவற்றை உபயோகப்படுத்தி, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா கண்டிப்பாக குற்றம் மெய்ப்பிக்கபட்டு சிறையில் அடைக்கபடவேண்டும் என்பதற்காக அறிவியல் டேக்நீக்களை உபயோகப்படுத்தி, அனைவரையும் தன்னுடைய குறிக்கோளை நிறைவேற்றி தருவதற்கு அவர்களை அவர்களது மனதளவில் தனக்கு அடிமை ஆக்கினாரா, அவர் எண்ணிய காரியங்களை நிறைவேற்ற?
இவற்றை எல்லாம் கூர்ந்து நோக்கும் பொழுது, ஓர் ஐயம் ஏற்படுகிறது.
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் உண்மை இருப்பின், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி தன்னுடய கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் நியுரோ லின்குவிஸ்டிக் பிரோக்ராமிங் மற்றும் அதனோடு சேர்த்து சைகியாட்றிக் சஜ்ஜெஷன் மற்றும் மைன்ட் கண்ட்ரோல் ஆகியவற்றை பிரயோகித்து மற்றவரை மனதளவில் தனக்கு அடிமை ஆக்கி, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவை சிறையில் அடைக்க முயற்சி செய்ய வேண்டுமா? அப்படி என்றால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் உண்மை இல்லையா? சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமியின் கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டில் உண்மை இருக்காவிட்டால், அவர் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் எப்படி ஏற்று கொள்ளப்பட்டது? வழக்கு இத்தனை வருடங்கள் எப்படி நடந்தது? குற்றம் எப்படி மெய்படுத்தபட்டது? செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா எப்படி சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டார்? அனைத்தும் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி விருப்பத்தின் படி நடந்தது என்றால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி அவ்வளவு திறமையாக அனைவரையும் தனக்கு அடிமை ஆக்கினாரா மனதளவில்? இதனை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, இந்த வழக்கில் மட்டும் தான் பிரயோகித்தாரா, அல்லது தேசத்தில் வெவ்வேறு வழக்குகளில் தன்னை தானே ஈடுபடுத்தி கொண்ட சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, இதே தான் மீண்டும் மீண்டும் செய்து தன்னுடைய அரசியல் லாபத்திற்காக அனைவரையும் அவர்கள் அறியாமல் மனதளவில் அடிமை படுத்தி அனைத்தையும் நாசம் செய்தாரா, தன்னுடைய அரசியல் லாபத்திற்காக? விஞ்ஞான அரசியலோ இது?

பின்குறிப்பு: இங்கு ஒரு கேள்வி எழுகின்றது... அறிவியல் சாதனங்களையும் டெக்நீக்களையும் உபயோகப்படுத்தி அடுத்தவர்களை அவர்கள் அறியாமல் மனதளவில் அடிமை ஆக்குவது அரசியல் சாசனம் படி குற்றம் இல்லையா? ஆபத்தான அறிவியல் குற்றவாளியோ சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி? இவர் மீது எவர் வழக்கு தொடுப்பார்? எந்த நீதிமன்றத்தில் விசாரிப்பார்? ஏன் எனில் அவர்களும் மனதளவில் அவர்கள் அறியாமல் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கு அடிமையானால், வழக்குகள் நல்ல முடிவை தருமா?



----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055381271752




Back to Top of Page




https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153203502706752


9. நீதிமன்றம் இந்த முடிவை தான் எடுக்க வேண்டும் என்று கூறுவதற்கு சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி யார்? செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிற்கு எதிராக கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்தவர்கள், நீதிமன்றங்களுக்கு தவறான வழியை காட்டினாரோ? சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மற்றும் அன்பழகன் மற்றும் அவர்களின் கூட்டாளிகளுக்கு நீதி துறை மீது அதிகாரம் இருந்ததோ, நீதி துறைக்கே தெரியாமல்? சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நீதிமன்றத்தின் அதிகாரத்தின் மேல் அதிகாரம் செலுத்தி இருந்தால், அது அரசியல் சாசனத்தில் எங்கு எப்படி வரையறுக்கப்பட்டு இருக்கிறது? நீதி துறைக்கு தெரிவிக்கப்படவேண்டிய உண்மைகளை மறைத்து, தங்களுக்கு வேண்டிய நீதி விசாரணை முடிவுகளை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மற்றும் அன்பழகன் மற்றும் அவர்களின் கூட்டாளிகள் கிடைக்க பெற்றனர் என்றால், மேலும் பல ஐயங்கள் எழும் .... மக்கள் சிந்திப்பார்களே!!!


(1)
Page 25/919
Rajya Sabha unstarred question No.57 answered on 23.2.1993
(2)
Page 21/919
Complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that the Income Tax department issued notices under Section 143(3) of the IT act and Section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax act.
* Date of IT Dept. Notice not provided by complainant.
(3)
Page 30/919
Complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy states that for taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Public Servants, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, sanction of the Governor of Tamil Nadu is necessary. But since the accused ceased to be public servant, sanction of Governor is not necessary.
(4)
*Complaint date not provided in available Judgement copy. Hence extracted from link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionate_Asset_case_against_Jayalalithaa
Date of Complaint by Dr. Subramanian Swamy: 14.06.1996
(5)
Page 32/919
Date of FIR: 18.09.1996
FIR Complainant information: Thiru VC Perumal IPS, IG of Police, DVAC, Chennai
(6)
Page 33/919
Reasons for delay in reporting by the FIR Complainant: No delay
(7)
Page 19/919 and 20/919
The complainant (Dr. Subramanian Swamy) states that according to the evidence he has collected from various sources including through Parliament by putting question and getting authoritative answers from the Government, the accused person has committed the offence and is guilty and warrants prosecution
---
மேலே உள்ள பத்தியில் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கூறுகிறார், குற்றம் சாற்றபட்டவர் குற்றத்தை செய்துவிட்டார், ஆதாரத்தின் படி, ஆதலால் அவர் குற்றம் செய்தவர், ஆதலால் அவரின் மீது வழக்கு விசாரணை மேற்கொள்ள வேண்டும் என்று.
சேகரிக்கப்பட்டவை ஆதாரம் என்று கருத முடியுமா, அவை போதுமா, பிரதிவாதி குற்றம் செய்தாரா, பிரதிவாதி மீது வழக்கு நடத்த வேண்டுமா என்பது எல்லாம் நீதி மன்றங்கள் தீர்மானிக்க வேண்டியவை.
ஆயினும் நீதி மன்றத்திற்கு யோசிக்க கூட இடம் அளிக்காமல், சுப்பிரமணியம் சாமியே, சிலவற்றை சேகரித்து இருக்கிறார்... அவரே அதனை ஆய்வு செய்து இருக்கிறார்.. அவரே தீர்ப்பளித்தும் விட்டார், பிரதிவாதி குற்றம் செய்து இருக்கிறார், ஆதலால் பிரதிவாதி குற்றவாளி என்று.
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி செய்த இந்த காரியம், நீதிமன்றத்தின் சுதந்திரத்தில் தலையிடுவது ஆகாதா ? அப்படி சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நீதிமன்றத்தின் அதிகாரத்தின் மேல் அதிகாரம் செலுத்தி இருந்தால், அது அரசியல் சாசனத்தில் எங்கு எப்படி வரையறுக்கப்பட்டு இருக்கிறது?
இதில் வேடிக்கை என்னவென்றால், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, பிரதிவாதியை குற்றவாளி என்று அவரே அறிவித்தபின்னர், பிரதிவாதியின் மீதி வழக்கு நடத்த வேண்டும் என்று கூறுகிறார்.
நீதிமன்றம் செய்ய வேண்டிய காரியத்தை, தானே செய்து விட்டு, நீதி மன்றம் பிரதிவாதியின் மீது வழக்கு நடத்த வேண்டும் என்று கூறுகிறார்...
இதன் அர்த்தம் என்ன? சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கூறிய அதே முடிவுக்கு தான் நீதிமன்றமும் வர வேண்டும் என்ற அர்த்தமா? அப்படி நீதிமன்றம் இந்த முடிவை தான் எடுக்க வேண்டும் என்று கூறுவதற்கு சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி யார்? அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் எந்த பிரிவு சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கு அந்த அதிகாரத்தை வழங்குகிறது?
மேலே உள்ள பத்தியில், திரு வி சி பெருமாள் ரிப்போர்ட் பண்ணுவதில் தாமதம் உள்ளதா என்று உறுதி செய்யப்பட்டது.
ஆனால் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் ரிப்போர்ட் செய்வதில் தாமதம் உள்ளதா என்று உறுதி செய்யப்படவில்லை? ஏன்? ஏன் இந்த குறைபாடு?
எல்லாவற்றையும் சேர்த்து பார்க்கும் பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி 1993ஆம் ஆண்டு நாடாளுமன்ற ராஜ்ய சபையில் கேட்ட கேள்விக்கும், கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் பதிவு செய்த தேதிக்கும் உள்ள கால அளவு சந்தேகத்திற்கு இடம் அளிக்கின்றது.
மேலும், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி குறிப்பிடுகிறார், குற்றம் பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதாவினால் முதல்வராக இருக்கும் பொழுது நடந்து இருந்தாலும், கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்யும் பொழுது அவர் முதல்வர் அல்ல, ஆதலால் கவர்னரின் அனுமதி தேவை இல்லை.
பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா 12.05.1996 அன்று வரை முதல்வராக இருந்திருக்கிறார்.
எல்லாவற்றையும் சேர்த்து காணும் பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் 1993 கேள்வி கேட்கிறார், ஆனால் 12.05.1996 தேதி முடியும் வரை காத்து இருக்கிறார். அப்பொழுதே கவர்னரின் அனுமதி பெற்று, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதா மீது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்து இருக்கலாமே?
1993 முதல் 1996 வரை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி என்ன செய்து கொண்டு இருந்தார்? எதற்காக காத்து கொண்டு இருந்தார்?
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி தான் கண்டுபிடித்ததன் மேல் நம்பிக்கை இருப்பது போல், தானே நீதிபதி செய்ய வேண்டிய அனைத்து காரியங்களையும் செய்து, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ ஜெயலலிதாவை குற்றவாளி என்று குறிப்பிடும் அளவு துணிவு உள்ள சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி, எதற்காக மூன்று வருடம் காத்து இருந்தார்?
அது வரை என்ன செய்து கொண்டு இருந்தார்?
தாமதத்தை உண்டாக்குவதால், தனக்கு ஏதாவது நியாமில்லாத நன்மையை பெற சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி முயற்சி செய்தாரா?
பிரதிவாதி முதல்வர் பதவியில் இருந்து இறங்கும் வரை காத்து இருந்து, அதற்கு பின்னர் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்து, சட்ட ரீதியான முறைகளை கோருகின்றனர்.
பின்னர், பிரதிவாதி மீண்டும் முதல்வராகும் பொழுது, திமுக கட்சியின் செயலாளர் அன்பழகன் மனு செய்து, நீதி விசாரணையை வேறு மாநிலத்துக்கு மாற்ற கோரினார், அதுவும் உச்ச நீதி மன்றத்தால் அனுமதிக்கப்பட்டது.
இவை அனைத்தையும் சேர்த்து பார்க்கும் பொழுது, சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கும், அன்பழகனுக்கும், மற்றவர்களுக்கும் ஏதோ ஒரு வினோதமான கூட்டு இருந்திருக்குமோ என்ற ஐயம் எழுகின்றது ...
சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி 1993 முதல் 1996 வரை மூன்று வருடங்கள் காத்து இருந்து, அதற்கு பின்னர் நீதிமன்ற முறைகளை ஆரம்பிக்கிறார் என்றால், அதே நியாயப்படி பிரதிவாதி மீண்டும் முதல்வராகும் பொழுதும், நீதி விசாரணை தொடரவேண்டும். கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்த சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கு என்ன வசதிகள் வழங்க பட்டதோ, அதே முறைப்படி, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிற்கும் அதே வசதிகள் வழங்கப்பட்டு இருந்திருக்க வேண்டும். ஆயினும், நிகழ்ந்தவற்றை காணும் பொழுது, அனைத்தும் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கும் அன்பழகனுக்கும் மற்றவர்களுக்கும் வசதியாக இருக்கும் படி நடந்து இருக்கின்றதோ என்ற ஐயம் எழுகின்றது. அப்படி நிகழ வாய்ப்பு இல்லை, ஏன் எனில் நீதிமன்றங்கள் பாராபட்சம் இன்றி இயங்கும். அப்படி இருக்கும் பொழுது, நீதி விசாரணைகளும் அவற்றிக்கு தொடர்புடைய மற்றவைகளும் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமிக்கும் அன்பழகனுக்கும் மற்றவர்களுக்கும் வசதியாக இருக்கும் படி நடந்து இருக்குமோ என்ற ஐயம் வரும் பொழுது, இதில் மேலும் ஒரு மிக பெரிய ஐயம் ஒன்று உருவாகின்றது... நீதிமன்றங்களுக்கும் உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்திற்கும் சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மற்றும் அன்பழகன் மற்றும் அவர்களின் கூட்டாளிகளால் உண்மைகள் மறைக்கப்பட்டதோ?
மேலும் உருவாகும் ஐயங்கள், சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மற்றும் அன்பழகன் மற்றும் அவர்களின் கூட்டாளிகளுக்கு நீதி துறை மீது அதிகாரம் இருந்ததோ, நீதி துறைக்கே தெரியாமல்?
நீதி துறைக்கு தெரிவிக்கப்படவேண்டிய உண்மைகளை மறைத்து, தங்களுக்கு வேண்டிய நீதி விசாரணை முடிவுகளை சுப்பிரமணியன் சாமி மற்றும் அன்பழகன் மற்றும் அவர்களின் கூட்டாளிகள் கிடைக்க பெற்றனர் என்றால், மேலும் பல ஐயங்கள் எழும் .... மக்கள் சிந்திப்பார்களே!!!




----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153055510861752







Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153203703651752


10. வஞ்சகமான சூழ்ச்சியினால் அனைத்தும் செட்அப் செய்யபட்டதோ பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மீது? இத்தனை சந்தேகங்களும் கேள்விகளும் எழும் பொழுது, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மீது புனையப்பட்ட வழக்கு வாபஸ் பெற படுமா ? அல்லது, எப்படி இருந்தால் என்ன என்ற நோக்கத்தில், பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா குற்றம் இழைத்தார் என்பதை நிலைநிறுத்த அனைத்து காரியங்களும் தடையின்றி செயல்படுமா, பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவுக்கு எதிராக வஞ்சகமான சூழ்ச்சியினால் அனைத்தும் செட்அப் செய்யபட்டு இருந்தாலும் ?

Page 55/919 PW.76
read together with
Page 60/919
Quote... "On 7.9.1999, when he came to the Court as a witness police officers connected with this case Nallama Naidu and few others put pressure on him to tell as they told. During his chief-examination, they compelled him to tell the names of the accused whom were not connected with the case regarding the sale transaction, so he told" ...End of Quote
பிராசிக்யுஷன் விட்னெஸ் PW.76 பதிவிட்டு இருக்கிறார், காவல் துறை அதிகாரி நல்லமா நாய்டு உத்தரவிட்டது போல் விட்னெஸ் அளித்ததாக பதிவிட்டு இருக்கிறார்.
வேறு ஒரு மேற்கோளையும் இங்கு காண வேண்டும்.
Additional Ref(1):
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article114129.ece
Jaya victim of frame-up
By C Shivakumar Published: 02nd May 2009 02:55 AM Last Updated: 15th May 2012 11:20 PM
Additional Ref(2):
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-allows-withdrawal-of-London-Hotel-case-against-Jayalalithaa/articleshow/4444633.cms
SC allows withdrawal of London Hotel case against Jayalalithaa
PTI | Apr 24, 2009, 05.47 PM IST
இவற்றை சேர்த்து பார்க்கும் பொழுது நல்லமா நாய்டு மற்றும் அவருடன் பணியாற்றியவர்களின் பணியை பற்றிய பெரிய ஐயங்களும் சந்தேகங்களும் தோன்றுகிறது அல்லவா?
பிரதிவாதியின் விட்ன்ஸ் பிராசிக்யுஷன் தரப்புக்கு எதிராக திரும்பினால், அது புரிந்து கொள்ளலாம்.
ஆனால், பிரசிக்யுஷன் விட்னஸ் பிரசிக்யுஷன் தரப்புக்கு எதிராக திரும்பினால், அது ஏகப்பட்ட கேள்விகளை எழுப்பும்... இன்வெஸ்ட்டிகேஷனை பற்றியும், குற்ற பத்திரிக்கை தாக்கல், மற்றும் குற்ற விசாரணையை பற்றியும் நிறைய கேள்விகளை எழுப்பும்..
இதற்கு முன் இட்ட பதிவுகளை சேர்த்து பார்க்கும் பொழுது, பிரதிவாதி செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மீது அனைத்தும் செட்-அப் செய்ய பட்டதா அல்லது ஜோடிக்கபட்டதா?
இத்தனை கேள்விகளும் சந்தேகங்களும் எழும் பொழுது, மொத்த விசாரணையும் திரும்ப பெற்று கொள்ளப்படுமா?
அல்லது இத்தனை கேள்விகளும் சந்தேகங்களும், கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்த இடத்தில் இருந்தே (அதற்கு முன்னரும்) எழுந்த பொழுதும், பிரதிவாதி செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா குற்றவாளி என்று நிரூபிக்க முயற்சி செய்ய படுமா, பிரதிவாதி செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மீது அனைத்தும் செட்-அப் அல்லது ஜோடித்ததாக இருந்தாலும்?


----------
*விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153059148111752







Back to Top of Page







https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153204563846752


11. பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவின் மீது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்தவர்களும், மனு செய்தவர்களும், இப்படி பட்ட குறையுள்ள கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டினாலும் குறையுள்ள அசெஸ்மேன்ட்டினாலும், மொத்த நீதி துறைக்கே களங்கம் விளைவித்து விட்டனரோ? .......செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மீது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்தவர்கள், அவர்கள் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட்டிலும் சொத்து அசெஸ்மென்ட்டிலும் செய்த தவறுகளை குறைகளை பொறுத்து ஊழல் குற்றசாற்றின் உக்கிரத்திலும் ஏகதேசமாக குறைத்து, அதற்கு ஏற்றாற்போல் வழக்கை செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவிற்கு எதிராக குறைத்து நடத்துங்கள் என்று நீதி துறையிடம் கேட்டு இருக்க வேண்டுமோ? அல்லது கேட்க மறந்து விட்டனரோ? அல்லது தங்கள் குறைகளை மறைத்து விட்டனரோ ? நீதி துறைக்கு களங்கம் விளைவித்து விட்டனரோ?


Page 69/919
Quote ... "In hyderabad, they inspected four buildings. Among them, three buildings were constructed 15 years back. One building might have been constructed three months before the date of inspection. The assessment was not done by practical or scientific method. They did not ask the PWD Engineers of hyderabad for furnishing Andhra Pradesh PWD price list. They did not take out the marble stones from the construction site to decide the price. Regarding the marble stone, they have not taken any writing from the marble merchants. They have not seen the thickness of the marble. They have not asked the expenses of doors from anybody" ... End of Quote
அசெஸ்மென்ட் எந்த ஒரு பிராக்டிகல் முறை மூலமாகவோ அறிவியல் முறை மூலமாகவோ செய்யப்படவில்லை என்று பதிவிடப்பட்டு இருக்கின்றது. அப்படி என்றால், அறிவியல் அல்லாத பிராக்டிகல் அல்லாது முறை மூலமாக அசெஸ்மென்ட் செய்ய பட்டதா? அப்படி செய்யபட்டால், எந்த அளவுக்கு அந்த அசெஸ்மென்ட்டை நம்பலாம்?
ஹைதேராபாத் பொதுப்பணித்துறை அதிகாரிகளிடம் பொதுப்பணித்துறை விலை பட்டியலை வாங்க வில்லை என்று பதிவிடப்பட்டு இருக்கின்றது. ஹைதேராபாத்தில் உள்ள பில்டிங்கை அசெச்மென்ட் செய்வதற்கு ஹைதேராபாத் பொதுப்பணித்துறை அதிகாரிகளிடம் பொதுப்பணித்துறை விலை பட்டியலை வாங்காமல் எப்படி அசெஸ்மென்ட் செய்தார்கள்? ஹைதேராபாத் பொதுப்பணித்துறை அதிகாரிகளிடம் விலை பட்டியல் வாங்காமல் வேறு யாரிடம் விலை பட்டியல் வாங்கினார்கள்? விலை பட்டியலே இல்லாமல் அசெஸ்மென்ட் செய்தார்களா? அப்படி செய்யபட்டால், எந்த அளவுக்கு அந்த அசெஸ்மென்ட்டை நம்பலாம்?
கன்ஸ்ட்ரக்ஷன் சைட்டில் இருந்து மார்பிள் கல்லை எடுத்து செல்ல வில்லை விலை நிர்ணயம் செய்ய என்று பதிவிடப்பட்டு இருக்கின்றது. அப்படி செய்யபட்டால், எந்த அளவுக்கு அந்த அசெஸ்மென்ட்டை நம்பலாம்?
மார்பிள் கல்லை பற்றி, எந்த ஒரு மார்பிள் வியாபாரியிடம் எதுவும் எழுதி வாங்க படவில்லை. அப்படி செய்யபட்டால், எந்த அளவுக்கு அந்த அசெஸ்மென்ட்டை நம்பலாம்?
கதவுகளின் விலையை பற்றி யாரிடமும் கேட்கவில்லை என்று பதிவிடப்பட்டு இருக்கின்றது. அப்படி செய்யபட்டால், எந்த அளவுக்கு அந்த அசெஸ்மென்ட்டை நம்பலாம்?
இவை அத்தனைக்கும் மேலே, ஆட்சி பொறுப்பில் ஊழல் செய்ததற்காக பிரதிவாதியை குற்றம் மெய்ப்பித்து சிறையில் அடைக்க வேண்டும் என்று கோரி இருக்கின்றனர், இப்படி பட்ட அசெஸ்மேன்ட்டுகளின் மேல். ஒரு பானை சோறுக்கு ஒரு சோறு பதம்.
இப்படிப்பட்ட அசெஸ்மேன்ட்டுகளின் மேல், எப்படி அவர்கள் நிறுபித்தார்கள், ஊழல் குற்றம் செய்ய பட்டது என்று?
அல்லது திருவிளையாடல் படத்தில் வருவது போல் (Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zztzKqHb66c from time 49:22), அசெஸ்மென்ட் குறைகளை பொறுத்து குற்ற பத்திரிக்கையையும் குறைத்து எழுதுங்கள் என்று நீதி துறையிடம் பிராசிக்யுஷன் தரப்பு வேண்டியதா?
நீதி துறையிடம் கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்து இருக்கிறார்கள், பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா ஆட்சி பொறுப்பில் ஊழல் செய்து விட்டார் என்று...
மேலும், மேலே குறிப்பிடப்பட்ட அசெஸ்மேன்ட்ட்டுகளையும் அவ்வளவு அழகாக (?) செய்து இருக்கிறார்கள். இவர்கள் செய்த அசெஸ்மேன்ட்டுகளையும் அதன் முடிவுகளையும் இவர்கள் அசெஸ்மென்ட் செய்த முறைகளை காணும் பொழுது, அதனை நேரில் கண்டு தான் அசெஸ்மென்ட் செய்ய வேண்டுமா என்ற ஐயம் வருகின்றது. இப்படி பட்ட முறையில்லாத அசெஸ்மென்டை செய்வதற்கு அவர்கள் காலத்தையும் சக்த்தியையும் செலவு செய்து அவ்வளவு தூரம் சென்று, இப்படி பட்ட முறையில்லாத அசெஸ்மென்ட்டை செய்வதற்கு, இருந்த இடத்தில் இருந்து கனவு கண்டு அதனை பதிவிட்டும் இருக்கலாமே.
இப்படிப்பட்ட முறையில்லாத அசெஸ்மென்ட்டை செய்து இருக்கிறார்கள் என்றால், மற்ற அசெஸ்மேன்ட்டையும் எப்படி செய்து இருப்பார்கள்?
திருவிளையாடல் படத்தில் வருவது போல... ஏதோ ஒரு கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் பதிவு செய்து விட்டார்கள்.. ஏதோ அசெஸ்மென்ட் செய்து விட்டார்கள்... ஆதலால், செய்த கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டுக்கும் அசெஸ்மேன்ட்டுக்கும், இருக்கிற நிறை குறைகளுக்கு ஏற்ப, சாட்ட பட்ட குற்றத்தையும் குற்ற பத்திரிக்கையையும் குறைத்து கொண்டு, அதற்க்கு ஏற்ப பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி. ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா மீது வழக்கு நடத்தி கொள்ளலாம் என்று வேண்டினார்களா?
பிரதிவாதியாகிய செல்வி ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாவின் மீது கம்ப்ளெயின்ட் செய்தவர்களும், மனு செய்தவர்களும், இப்படி பட்ட குறையுள்ள கம்ப்லேயின்ட்டினாலும் குறையுள்ள அசெஸ்மேன்ட்டினாலும், மொத்த நீதி துறைக்கே களங்கம் விளைவித்து விட்டனரோ?


----------
*இவற்றை, இதற்க்கு முன்னர் இட்ட பதிவுகளுடன் சேர்த்து வாசிக்க வேண்டும். விரிவான தகவல் கீழே மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்ட இணையதள முகவரிகளில் காணப்படும்
மேற்கோள்:
https://www.facebook.com/prabhu.britto/posts/10153059503736752




குன்ஹாவின் தீர்ப்பின் அறிவியல் மதிப்பாய்வு:
http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-a-judgement

குமாராசாமி தீர்ப்பின் அறிவியல் மதிப்பாய்வு:
http://www.prabhubritto.org/home/scientific-review-of-the-justice-c-r-kumarasamy-judgement

~
பேராசிரியர் முனைவர் பிரபு பிரிட்டோ ஆல்பர்ட்
ஸ்தாப ஆசிரியர் IJBST ஆராய்ச்சி பத்திரிக்கைகள் குழுமம்
www.ijlphl.org







Back to Top of Page






home