Madras High Court Upholds Sentence Of Former Minister’s 80-Yr-Old Wife In Disproportionate Assets Case

Paramasivam was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly during the period 1991 to 1996 and served as the Minister for Labour Welfare in Government of Tamil Nadu during 1993-1996. During this period, Paramasivam, along with his wife had acquired properties beyond their known pecuniary resources during the check period between 1991 to 1996.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Minister, being a public servant had acquired wealth 400% above his known sources of income and his wife had lend her name in acquiring properties through undeclared sources thus committing the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“Thus, it is evident that the deceased first accused being a Public Servant had acquired wealth above 400% of his known source of income. From undeclared source, the properties been acquired by the public servant (A1) (Paramasivan) in his name and in the name of his wife (A-2) (Nallammal) also in the name of his minor children. A-2 have lend her name for purchasing the property through source undeclared. Therefore, the trial Court judgement of conviction dated 15/11/2000 is hereby confirmed,” the court observed.

The appellants had submitted that the prosecution was laid against Paramasivam due to political rivalry and considering that Paramasivam was no more and his wife was also above 80 years of age and had been facing the ordeal of criminal prosecution for more than 25 years, she may be spared from incarceration.

The court, however, noted that since the minimum sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment was imposed, there could not be a further reduction of sentence and Nallammal had to be sentenced to undergo at least the minimum sentence.

“The offence being acquiring wealth by a public servant beyond his known source of income and A-2 for aiding the public servant, had been sentenced for one year R.I being the minimum sentence prescribed under the law. So there cannot be further reduction of sentence. In such circumstances, the appellant/A2 has to be sentenced to undergo atleast the minimum sentence which is one year. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court in Special S.C.No.11/1997 stands confirmed,” the court said.

The court also confirmed the order trial judge for forfeiting the properties for recovery of amounts but modified the recovering sum from Rs 35,25,136/- to Rs 33,25,165/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of interim attachment on March 6^th, 1997.

Nallammal had also challenged the order contending that the prosecution suffers malafide and perversity. It was submitted that the prosecution had deliberately not relied on some documents showing their income from other sources with an ulterior motive and had also failed to give consideration to the Income Tax Returns though it was filed before registration of the case.

The court however noted that the claims had not been substantiated through reliable evidence except the testimony of some interested witnesses. With respect to income tax returns, the court noted that there was no proof to show that the assets from which the income was derived were legally acquired.

Thus, finding no perversity, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.M.Velmurugan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

Case Title: AM Paramasivan and another v State

Case No: Crl.A.No.1170 of 2000