Madras High Court Convicts Tamil Nadu Minister In Disproportionate Assets Case

The Madras High Court on Tuesday set aside an order of a trial court, acquitting Higher Education Minister and DMK leader K Ponmudy and his wife P Visalakshi in a Rs 1.75 crore disproportionate assets case.

Passing orders on an appeal filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Justice G Jayachandran convicted the Minister and his wife and directed them to be present in the court on December 21 for pronouncing the sentence after hearing them.

The judge set aside the order of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, acquitting Ponmudy and his wife in the case.

The charge of offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act framed against Ponmudy stands proved.

Such sections are related to criminal misconduct by a public servant and illicit enrichment.

The charges under same sections of PC Act read with section 109 of I P C (abetment) against Visalakshi are proved, the court held.

The judge pointed to overwhelming evidence against the accused and the unsustainable reasons given by the trial court for acquittal them by ignoring evidence.

The judgment of the trial Court is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable. "Hence, this is a fit case for the Appellate Court to interfere and set it aside".

The judge said the ready acceptance of Income Tax returns of Visalakshi by the trial Court without appreciating independent evidence was palpably wrong and manifestly erroneous. The trial Court, before jumping into the said conclusion ought to have searched for supportive and independent evidence.

In the absence of independent evidence, accepting the fanciful claim of agricultural income to a tune of Rs.55,36,488/- as against the estimated agricultural income of Rs.13,81,182/- was infirm and demonstrably unsustainable, the judge added.

The judge said ignoring the first principle of law and the judicial pronouncements, acceptance of the 'self-serving declaration of income to the Income Tax Authority, by an accused in a disproportionate assets case was not a possible view' but an erroneous view conceived due to misconception. It was a conclusion arrived by ignoring the most reliable evidence let in by the prosecution regarding the income of A-1 (Ponmudy) and A-2 (Visalakshi).

The trial Judge has also misinterpreted bank account statements as proof of income. A complete miscarriage of justice had occurred by the omission of reliable evidence and by misinterpretation of the evidence.

The prosecution case was that Ponmudy had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs 1.75 crore in his name and in the name of his wife, disproportionate to his known sources of income when he was a Minister between 2006 and 2011 in the DMK regime.

The minister is likely to face disqualification, which will be clear following pronouncement of sentence by the court. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)