The Madras High Court on Thursday sent Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister and DMK leader K Ponmudy and his wife P Visalakshi to three years of imprisonment three years in prison under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a Rs 1.75 crore disproportionate assets case. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 50 Lakh on both the accused.
As per the order, if Ponmudy and his wife failed to pay the fine, they would have to undergo six more months of imprisonment.
Senior counsel N R Ellango, appearing for the accused, prayed the court to grant leave to enable them to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and also to suspend the sentence.
The judge granted leave for 30 days and also suspended the sentence for 30 days. On completion of the duration of the suspension, they have to surrender before the trial court in Villupuram, the judge added.
Legal experts said Ponmudy, following his conviction and prison term, stands disqualified from the post of MLA and he will also lose the post of Minister.
Madras High Court’s Order
The court on Tuesday set aside an order of a trial court, acquitting Ponmudy and his wife in the case.
Passing orders on an appeal filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Justice G Jayachandran set aside the order of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, acquitting Ponmudy and his wife in the case.
The charge of an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the 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 the same sections of the PC Act read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment) against Visalakshi are proved, the court held.
HC Sets Aside Trial Court Order
The judge pointed to the overwhelming evidence against the accused and the unsustainable reasons given by the trial court for acquitting 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.
What Was The Case?
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.
(With PTI Inputs)
Comments
0 comment