Dhoti scam witness turns hostile

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, MAY 9. A prosecution witness in the case relating to `free dhoti/saree scam' during the previous AIADMK rule today turned hostile while deposing before the Special Judge-III, Mr. P. Anbazhagan. While tendering evidence, the witness, Mr. Roussean of Karambakkam near Porur, said he was working in the godown of one Mr. Ponnambalam and on his request he opened a bank account in the name of Steven Enterprises. That was all he knew.

Later, Mr.Ponnambalam obtained his signature in the cheque book. The witness said the signature found on a letterhead of the firm, which had been marked as an exhibit, was not that of his. He also denied it was his signature which was found on certain other documents also.

Mr. Ponnambalam obtained his signature as the proprietor of the firm on blank bank forms for introducing some others for opening accounts.

The witness was treated as hostile at a stage when he gave statement that went contrary to what he had stated to police. During cross-examination by prosecution, he said he did not tell police that he was working in one Mr.Murugesan's godown.

He did not tell police that he accompanied Mr.Murugesan to Coimbatore after the latter told him that some textile orders had been obtained.

It would not be correct to say that he had told the police that only on Mr.Murugesan and Mr.Ponnambalam's instructions that he affixed his signature in several forms.

Meanwhile, another prosecution witness, Mr. A. Murugasamy of Chinnapudur in Coimbatore district, a relative of Mr. Damodarasamy, cited as accused in the case, said it was only during CB-CID interrogation in 1996 he came to know that a bank account and a textile firm had been opened in his name.

It was then he knew that Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation (TNTC) had credited Rs. 55 lakhs in the firm's name and also about its letter correspondence with TNTC in his name as proprietor of the firm.

During questioning by income-tax officials he came to know that 3.50 lakh shares had been invested in his name in a company.

In 1996, Mr. Damodarasamy's wife obtained his signature on some papers by threatening him. She did not tell him for what purpose the signature was obtained.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Millers hopeful of policy review on rice movement
Next     : Officials concerned over missing names of voters