TN minister Ponmudy convicted in corruption case, loses post

CHENNAI: In a political and legal blow to the ruling DMK, the Madras high court on Tuesday convicted state higher education minister K Ponmudy in a corruption case, resulting in his immediate disqualification as an MLA and a minister.

The quantum of his jail term, however, will be known only on Thursday, the day Justice G Jayachandran has summoned Ponmudy and his wife P Visalakshi to be present in court.

Reversing an acquittal order passed by the Villupuram special court for cases against MPs and MLAs in 2016, the judge said: "A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent."

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption (DVAC) had filed the present appeal in 2017.

In 2011, DVAC booked the couple under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the check period between 2006 and 2011 when Ponmudy was minister for mines and minerals.

On Tuesday, Justice Jayachandran rejected the findings of the trial judge that the minister and his wife were two entities and that they could not be clubbed together. He said: "This is basically a fallacious approach by the trial court."

The court pointed out that the trial court had failed to examine that the business and agricultural land owned by the minister's wife had not yielded income sufficient enough to acquire the wealth held in her name and that she just held them for the minister.

"The trial court, without assigning any plausible reasons for any man of prudence to believe, had first segregated A-2 (wife) from A-1 (minister), then relied on the income tax returns filed by A-2 after receipt of final opportunity Notice (FON) without any corroboration or supporting evidence," the court said.

The ready acceptance of income tax returns of A-2 by the trial court without any independent evidence is palpably wrong and manifestly erroneous. The trial court, before jumping into the conclusion, ought to have searched for supportive and independent evidence, the court added.

"In the absence of independent evidence, accepting the fanciful claim of agricultural income to a tune of ₹55.36 lakh as against the estimated agricultural income of ₹13.81 lakh is infirm and demonstrably unsustainable," the judge said.

Ignoring the first principle of law and the judicial pronouncements, acceptance of the self-serving declaration of income to the tax authority by an accused in a disproportionate assets case is not a possible view but an erroneous view conceived due to misconception, the court said.

"The trial judge has also misinterpreted the bank account statements of the accused as proof of income. A complete miscarriage of justice had occurred by the omission of reliable evidence and by misinterpretation of the evidence," the court said.

Justice Jayachandran held that the duo had amassed 64.9% of wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income and found them guilty of the offence of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court further refused to suspend the operation of the order as sought by senior advocate N R Elango for the minister to enable them to move an appeal before the Supreme Court. Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which discusses disqualification of a convicted MLA or MP, makes it clear that while one needs to be sentenced to not less than two years to attract disqualification, in the case of corruption cases and some other category of cases, they shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction. It also says they shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since their release.

"The court will take a decision on December 21 after pronouncing the sentence," the judge said.