Operation Of S. 8(3) Of Representation Of People Act Creates Irreversible Situation: SC While Suspending Conviction Of Former TN Minister K Ponmudi
The Supreme Court has suspended the conviction and sentence of former Tamil Nadu Minister K. Ponmudi who was imprisoned under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, 18760, for disproportionate pecuniary resources and properties, and has given the reason that irreversible situation will be created as the Appellant will be disqualified from the Legislative Assembly.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Our attention is invited to Section 8(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short "the 1951 Act"). As the sentence is above 2 years, the appellant who is a member of the Legislative Assembly will incur disqualification as a result of the conviction.”
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. Abhishek Manusinghvi, Siddharth Luthra, N.R. Elango and Siddharth Dave appeared on behalf of the Appellant(s) and Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade appeared for the Respondent.
The Court further held, “Therefore, in the facts of the case and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, a case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence and conviction. The reason is that in view of operation of Section 8(3) of the 1951 Act, irreversible situation will be created if the conviction is not suspended.”
The Special Court had passed an order of acquittal in favour of the Accused and his wife observing the failure of the prosecution to prove the incidents of disproportionate income and wealth.
However, the High Court of Madras overturned the acquittal and convicted the Accused(s). Setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the High Court observed that, "the trial Court on superficial reading of the evidence had proceeded with the process of decision making on the premise that A-1 and A-2 are separate entities and they both cannot be clubbed together. This is basically a fallacious approach by the trial Court.". Challenging the order of the High Court, the Accused and his wife approached the Supreme Court.
The case against the former Minister K. Ponmudi and his wife originated in 2011 when the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) filed charges. Ponmudi served as the Minister for Higher Education and Mines in the DMK regime from 2006 to 2011.
The prosecution alleged that between April 13, 2006, and March 31, 2010, the accused amassed Rs 1.79 crore in wealth disproportionate to their documented income. The DVAC claimed that the couple's pecuniary resources and properties increased from Rs 2.71 crore to Rs. 6.27 crore during this period.
The DVAC asserted that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant increase in their wealth. Ponmudi, as a public servant, was accused of violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, while his wife faced charges of aiding and abetting him in acquiring disproportionate assets.
Consequentially, the Court suspended the conviction and sentence of Ponmudi, suspended the sentence of the wife, and released both of them on bail.
Cause Title: K. Ponmudi@Deivasigamani v. State of Tamil Nadu
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Luthra, N.R. Elango, Siddharth Dave, Advocates E. C. Agrawala, Pulkit Tare, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Devansh Srivastava, Sukriti Bhatnagar, Abhinabh Garg, P. Dinesh Kumar, K. Suresh, Misha Rohatgi, Kartikeya Dang, Aswin Prassana, Agilesh Kumar S, Dinesh.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, Advocates D.Kumanan, Deepa. S, Sheikh F. Kalia.
