Chennai: The Madras High Court on Thursday sentenced Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister and DMK leader K Ponmudy and his wife, P Visalakshi, to three years besides imposing a fine of Rs 50 lakh on each in a disproportionate wealth case under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
The court also suspended the sentence for 30 days enabling the Minister to go on appeal. The conviction term automatically led to his disqualification as an MLA, and he was dropped from the MK Stalin-led Cabinet.
Following his disqualification, the portfolio of higher education held by Ponmudy was allotted by Chief Minister M K Stalin to Minister for Backward Classes Welfare, R S Rajakannappan. A Raj Bhavan release said Chief Minister Stalin recommended to Governor R N Ravi to allot the portfolio held by Ponmudy to Rajakannappan. The governor has approved the recommendation of the chief minister, the release added. Ponmudy, before he was disqualified, held the portfolio of higher education, which includes subjects like science and technology.
Earlier in the day, the Court set aside an order of a trial court, acquitting Ponmudy and his wife P Visalakshi in a Rs 1.79 crore disproportionate assets case. Justice G Jayachandran, who was passing orders on an appeal filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, had told the Minister and his wife to be present in the court on Thursday during pronouncing of the quantum of sentence.
The charge of offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act framed against Ponmudy stands proved. Such sections are related to criminal misconduct by a public servant and illicit enrichment, the court ruled.
The charges under same sections of PC Act read with section 109 of I P C (abetment) against Visalakshi are proved, it said. 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 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... Hence, this is a fit case for the Appellate Court to interfere and set it aside," the court observed.
"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.
Who is K Ponmudy
A party veteran and strongman of Villupuram region, Ponmudy becomes the third sitting legislator of Tamil Nadu to lose the membership of the Assembly following conviction. Late Chief Minister and AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa, in a wealth case in 2014, and AIADMK minister Balakrishna Reddy of Hosur in a case of rioting in 2019, were the others who were disqualified.
Ponmudy was a minister in the previous DMK ministries of 1989 – 1991 and 2006 – 2011. The present case pertains to the minister possessing assets to the tune of Rs 1.79 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income when he was a minister for Higher Education and Mines from 2006 to 2011.
The vigilance case against him was registered in September 2011 after the AIADMK returned to power. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) in the charge sheet submitted that the minister and his wife possessed assets to the tune of Rs 2.71 crore as of April 13, 2006. But, it had shot up to Rs 6.27 crore by May 213, 2010 of which the duo could not account for Rs 1.79 crore. Pressing the charge of criminal misconduct against Ponmudy, the agency charged Visalakshi with abetting him.
But, the special court at Villupuram acquitted both in April 2016, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the properties in the name of the wife were through ill-gotten money of the minister and that she had individual income from agricultural lands and other businesses. The DVAC filed an appeal challenging it in 2017. However, the case was listed before various judges and adjournments have taken six long years.
On Thursday morning, Ponmudy, accompanied by his wife, arrived at the High Court sans the paraphernalia for a minister. The vehicle did not sport either the national flag or the state government insignia.
Consequent to the conviction, his disqualification falls within Section 8 (1) of the Representation of People Act which lists out offences such as those under NDPS Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. Conviction and slapping of fine are enough to disqualify an MLA from the date of conviction. The conviction has to be notified by the Assembly Secretariat. A legislator disqualified as such could not contest any election for six years from the date of release from prison. In this respect, it is different from Section 8 (3), under which Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was disqualified in a defamation case after a trial court order in Gujarat. The Assembly Secretariat had said that the notification would be issued on receipt of the judgment copy.
Ponmudy's counsel and DMK's Rajya Sabha MP, NR Elango said the HC verdict would be challenged in the Supreme Court and expressed confidence in getting it overturned. “The case itself was filed for political vendetta. The basis of the case was that Ponmudy's wife had not filed IT returns properly and the High Court too had relied on that. Though she had not filed annual returns, maybe on the advice of auditors, the advance tax had been paid and we have documentary evidence. She was successfully running Vishal Auto and other businesses with an annual turnover of Rs 5 crore. Her brothers have invested in the ventures and she had received 100 acres of agricultural land from her family. We will bring them before the Supreme Court.”
Further, the High Court had failed to appreciate the statement of the Investigating Officer before the trial court, admitting the absence of evidence to prove that Ponmudy had invested 'ill-gotten' money in his wife's ventures, he pointed out.
To a question, he said: “Only during the fag end of the hearing Ponmudy himself came to know that Justice Jayachandran had served as Secretary of Law Department and handled the files pertaining to the case when attachment of the properties were made. When we informed the judge, he made it clear that he would not have recused from the case even if it was brought to his notice earlier. It is a matter of law and we have faith in the integrity of the judge.”
Also read:
