Hc Notice To Dvac On Freezing Of Jayalalithas Accounts

The Madras High Court yesterday ordered issue of notice to the directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC) on a revision petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha, questioning the validity of the DVACs action in ordering the freezing of about Rs 3.58 crore lying in her bank accounts and deposits in a finance company here.

Justice M Karpagavinayagam issued the notice of motion returnable by April 22 on Jayalalithas petition, which also seeks interim orders to permit her to operate her savings bank and current accounts in Canara Bank, Mylapore, and fixed deposits in Shriram Investments Ltd.

The accounts and deposits had been frozen by the bank and the company on instructions from the DVAC, which is investigating the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by Jayalalitha during her tenure as Chief Minister between 1991 and 1996.

She had challenged the DVACs order in the principal sessions court which dismissed her petition on February 17 last. Following this she filed the revision petition.

Jayalalitha contended that major portions of the amounts in these accounts had been in existence even prior to 1991 (before she became Chief Minister).

On account of the DVACs action, she had been unable to operate the accounts, or even draw interest on her deposits.

She said the lower court had failed to note that there was no law enabling the respondent to pass any order to seizure of moneys belonging to her, when the amounts were not involved in any offence, and when they were not shown to be equivalent to any definite disproportionate assets.

As the investigation had not been completed to ascertain the extent of the alleged disproportionate assets, the DVAC had no jurisdiction to freeze the amounts in question.

Neither Section 102 CrPC (power of the authorities to seize materials suspected to be involved in commission of any offence) nor the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, (which provides for attachment of property of public servants if they were involved in corruption) would enable the authorities to freeze her accounts, she said.

The lower court had erred in placing the onus on her to show that the moneys were duly accounted, whereas, it was the police officer who froze the accounts who should establish that prima facie there were grounds to show that they were liable for seizure, she said, and prayed for the setting aside of the lower courts order.