Supreme Court Bench Delivers Split Verdict On Acquittal Of Former AIADMK Minister’s Wife In Disproportionate Assets Case
Justice Dhulia directed the accused to surrender to undergo remaining sentence whereas Justice Amanullah set aside her conviction.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench gave split verdict with respect to the acquittal of P. Nallammal, the wife of former AIADMK Minister late A.M. Paramasivam in disproportionate assets related case and placed the case before the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was dealing with four Appeals.
Justice Dhulia observed, “In the present case, the appellant actively participated in the purchase of various movable and immovable properties in her name. It has come in unrebuttable evidence of the prosecution that the present appellant had visited the office of the concerned Registrar for getting the sale deeds registered. And this had happened on more than one occasion for different sale deeds. The Trial Court and the High Court had rightly accepted the prosecution’s case that the appellant knowingly allowed her husband to accumulate illegal wealth in her name and thus, committed an offence under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act.”
On the other hand, Justice Amanullah was of the view that the acts of the accused do not fall within the ambit of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and in such circumstances, it would be unsafe to sustain her conviction with the aid of Section 109 of IPC.
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared for the Appellant/Accused while AOR D. Kumanan appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
The first Appeal arose from an SLP (Special Leave Petition) challenging the Order by which the Appellant-accused’s conviction and sentence of one-year Rigorous Imprisonment by the Trial Court for offence under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), was affirmed by the Madras High Court. The second Appeal arose from an SLP filed by the accused and legal heirs of his husband (Paramasivam) i.e., their children, challenging the Attachment Order as modified by an Order. The other two Appeals arose from the SLPs filed by the legal heirs of the accused against the Administrative Order by which the High Court’s Chief Justice listed the Criminal Appeals for fresh hearing which finally resulted in the Common Order by which the accused’s conviction and sentence as well as the Attachment Order, with modification were affirmed.
The Appellant’s husband was a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and a Minister. He was accused of acquiring disproportionate assets while holding public office as a public servant. The properties were also allegedly accumulated in the name of his wife i.e., the Appellant and their minor children. The Appellant was accused of abetting the accumulation of disproportionate assets. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and her husband and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and 2 years respectively. An Attachment Order was passed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 whereby disproportionate assets belonging to the accused were attached. Against both these Orders, the accused filed Appeals before the High Court, which dismissed the same. However, it modified the Attachment Order by reducing the quantum of disproportionate assets calculated by the Trial Court. During the pendency of the Appeal before the High Court, the Appellant’s husband passed away. Resultantly, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Justice Dhulia’s Observations
Justice Dhulia in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “There is no doubt that mere registration of disproportionate assets in the name of a public servant’s relative or friend does not make that person guilty of abetment of the offence of Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. All the same, it is also a settled position of law that a person who is not a public servant still can commit an offence under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act read with Section 109 of the IPC. I am of the opinion that the appellant was an accomplice in the commission of the crime when she allowed Accused No.1 to register the properties in her name.”
He added that where there is abetment by a close relative in corruption matters, such as the spouse in this case, the culpability of such a relative has to be tested by the surrounding circumstances and his/her overall conduct and this is because, in such cases, there would rarely be direct evidence of abetment.
“The High Court notes that the total salary drawn by accused No.1 during the check period was Rs. 2,17,178, and considering this, it is impossible to imagine that the appellant was not aware of her husband’s legitimate income. It is very hard to believe that she was not aware that these assets which were in her name were not acquired from her husband’s legitimate sources of income”, he further remarked.
Justice Dhulia concluded that there is no reason to interfere with the Order of the High Court and hence, directed the Appellant to surrender within 10 weeks to undergo her remaining sentence.
Justice Amanullah’s Observations
Justice Amanullah said, “It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and a solitary circumstance of name-lending, such as the one at present, cannot lead us to draw and sustain an inference which unerringly points to the guilt of the 2nd Accused. There has to be something more in the form of positive evidence to satisfy the essential requirements for the offence of abetment. Life and liberty are not things to be trifled with on the basis of conjectures and surmises.”
He also remarked that the presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence and it gets dislodged only by presenting cogent and reliable evidence.
“Not for nothing is it stated that the accused is the favourite child of the law and to him/her enure all the benefits of doubt as available in law. There is absolutely no evidence on record, much less any evidence to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the 2nd Accused conspired/colluded with or intentionally aided the 1st Accused in committing offence(s) under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act”, he added.
Justice Amanullah, therefore, set aside the impugned Order to the extent of conviction of the Appellant and discharged her of the liability of her bail bonds and sureties.
“As evincible from the Impugned Administrative Order, there did not exist any ‘Judgment’ dated 30.04.2013. The learned then Chief Justice of the High Court, thus, cannot be faulted for restoring the criminal appeal for fresh hearing”, he concluded.
Conclusion
The Bench differed only with respect to the Appeal challenging the conviction of the Appellant. It was unanimous as to the other Appeals challenging the Attachment Order and Attachment Order and dismissed the same.
“In view of the above, Registry to place the relevant papers of the appeal arsing from SLP(Criminal) No.2127/2024, before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions”, the Court directed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court placed the case before the CJI.
Cause Title- P. Nallamal v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 643)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, AOR M.P. Parthiban, Advocates C. Paramasivam, Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Ankur Prakash, Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, and Alagiri K.
Respondent: AOR D. Kumanan
