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

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.

Previously, the high court had exercised its suo moto revision against another order of June 2023 acquitting the Minister and his wife.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

Case Title: State v K Ponmudi and Others

Case No: Crl A 53 of 2017