BREAKING| Madras High Court Sentences TN Minister Ponmudi To 3 Year Imprisonment In Disproportionate Asset Case

The Madras High Court has sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his wife Visalakshi to three year simple imprisonment and 50 lakh fine each in a disproportionate asset case.Justice G Jayachandran gave 30 days to the parties to surrender and added that the parties could work out their remedies before the Supreme Court during this time. The court also said that any decision on an extension of the time would be considered later if the couple could not work out their remedies before the Apex Court. The court also remarked that if it was any other ministry the matter would have been different but the Minister had committed the offence being in charge of the Ministry of Higher Education which affected the future generation also."This court, on considering the nature of offence and the gravity and impact on the society and also taking into consideration the submissions of the accused impose simple imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 50 Lakh each. In default, six months simple imprisonment. I'll grant 30 days for surrender," the court said on Thursday.On Tuesday, the court had set aside the acquittal of the Minister and his wife finding them guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court had directed the Minister and his wife to appear before the court for the hearing on the sentence. Following this, the paid physically appeared before the court on Thursday. With this order convicting the Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ponmudi will be disqualified as a legislator under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951. It was alleged that during the stock period between 2006 and 2010, Ponmudi while serving as the Minister for Mines and Minerals under the DMK regime, had acquired assets 65.99% more than their known sources of income along with his wife and could not satisfactorily explain the source. The court noted that the trial court had wantonly brushed aside the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v Suresh Rajan in which the Apex Court had held against accepting Income Tax Returns as proof of legal source of income. It was observed that the trial court had merely relied on the Income Tax Returns filed by the parties for assessing their income and assets, which were filed belatedly after the initiation of prosecution, without testing them according to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the trial court had split up Ponmudi and his wife as two different entities without assessing and determining whether Ponmudi's wife alone could have amassed the wealth shown to her name during the check period as agricultural and business income. The court noted that there was no evidence to support and substantiate Visalakshi's claims and the trial court had erroneously relied upon bank statements. Though a claim was made by Visalakshi that her omission or commission could not be clubbed together with that of Ponmudi, the court noted that as per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was not only the properties held by the public servant which should be accounted of the source, but the person who holds properties on behalf of the public servant should also be liable to explain the source of income. Acquittal of Guilty Is No Less Than Conviction of Innocent While explaining the scope of powers of the appellate court, the court observed that the principle to be followed by the appellate court while considering appeals was to interfere only when the order of acquittal only if there were compelling and substantial reasons. The court added that the miscarriage of justice that arose from the acquittal of a guilty person was no less than the conviction of an innocent. Thus, the court noted that when it was found that the admissible evidence was ignored, there was a duty cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence for ascertaining whether an offence had been committed or not. “The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and if relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it shall be a reason sufficient for interference,” the court observed. In the present case, the court was satisfied that the order of the trial court was palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable which warranted interference by the appellate court. The court was also satisfied that a complete miscarriage of justice had occurred by the omission of reliable evidence and by misinterpretation of evidence by the trial court. Thus, the court allowed the appeals preferred by the State and set aside the order of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Villupuram. ...

BREAKING| Madras High Court Sentences TN Minister Ponmudi To 3 Year Imprisonment In Disproportionate Asset Case

Upasana Sajeev

Tags