Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside Conviction Of Former Tamil Nadu Minister Aranganayagam In Disproportionate Asset Case

Justice G Jayachandran thus confirmed the confiscation of properties of Arangayagam, who passed away on April 29, 2021.

“The disproportionate assets to the known source of income of a public servant well proved. The percentage of disproportion is (Rs.14,49,020 x 100/24,16,029) = 59.5% approximately. Since, the prosecution has proved that A1 had in his possession assets worth about 59.5% more and above his explained source of income, the conviction against A1 stands confirmed,” the court ordered.

The case against Arangayagam was that while serving as the Minister for Labour and Education, during 1991-1996, he had accumulated wealth disproportionate to his income. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai registered a case and he was charged with offenses under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Along with Arangayagam, a case was also registered against his wife and two sons for abetment.

After appreciating the evidence, the trial court held Arangayagam guilty and sentenced him to 3 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment of 3 months. The trial court also ordered the confiscation of properties purchased by Arangayagan during the check period. The trial court also acquitted the family of Arangayagam.

During the appeal, Arangayam's counsel argued that the trial court's calculation was bristled with infirmity and the findings did not correlate with the actual value of the assets. It was argued that the trial court had failed to take into account the agricultural income and other sources through movie distribution and subsidies received from the government.

It was further argued that there were contradictions in arriving at the disproportionality as the trial court had noted disproportionality as 9.51% in one contest and 70.52% in another contest. It was also contended that the trial court had failed to take note of the fact that the prosecution had failed to complete the trial within a reasonable time as the case was registered in 1996, but the final report was filed only in the year 2005.

However, the court, on looking into the statements and other documents, opined that the prosecution had proved that Aranganaygan was unable to explain his disproportionate income satisfactorily.

Regarding the family members, though the DVAC challenged their acquittal, the court noted that the prosecution had proceeded against them on the premise that they had no independent income and all the purchases were sourced through Arangayagan's income. The court however noted that Arangayagan's wife was a pensioner and owner of agricultural land while his sons were professional cinema actor and doctor. Thus, the court held that the trial court had rightly acquitted them.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Muralikumaran, Senior Counsel, for M/s.Mogan Law Firm, Assisted by Mr.R.Gopinath

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 272

Case Title: C.Aranganayagam (Deceased) v The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: Crl.A.No.283 of 2017