As per Sudhanshu Dhulia [dissenting]
1. I had the benefit of going through the Judgment authored by my learned brother Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. where the Accused No.2 (P. Nallammal) has been acquitted for the offence under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’). Though I agree with some of the observations made by my brother Judge, yet I am unable to accept the conclusion and findings of acquittal as regards Accused No.2, who was the wife of the public servant Accused No.1. Consequently, I have found it necessary to pen down my reasons for doing so.
Facts
6. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to take note of the following details of this case:
a. Accused no.1 (husband of the appellant) who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a Minister, was accused of acquiring disproportionate assets while holding public office as a public servant. The properties were also accumulated in the name of the present appellant i.e. Accused no.2 and their minor children. The present appellant was thus accused of abetting the accumulation of disproportionate assets.
b. The Trial Court convicted Accused No.1 under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, whereas the appellant (Accused No.2) was convicted under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act read with section 109 of the IPC. Accused No.1 and appellant (Accused No.2) were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and one year, respectively.
c. An attachment order dated 03.01.2001 was passed under sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ordinance’), whereby the disproportionate assets belonging to Accused No.1 and the appellant were attached.
d. Against both these orders (of conviction and sentence, and attachment, respectively), the accused filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the criminal 5 appeals by the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2023. However, the High Court modified the attachment order by reducing the quantum of disproportionate assets calculated by the Trial Court.
e. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, Accused No.1 (husband of the appellant) has passed away. Now, we have only Accused No.2 i.e. P. Nallammal, wife of the main accused (A.M Paramasivam) who is now deceased, before us.
Appeal against conviction
7. The challenge before us is to a judgment delivered by the Madras High Court on 20.11.2023, whereby the conviction of the appellant under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year imposed by the Trial Court was upheld.
Case of the prosecution is appellant abetted her husband in acquisition of these assets
9. The prosecution case was that the accused had amassed disproportionate assets, since there was a vast difference between the assets in their name at the beginning of the check period i.e., between 16.06.1991 and 09.05.1996. The prosecution case against the present appellant was that although she had no independent income as such, she abetted her husband in acquisition of these assets in her name and in the name of her children as their representative and natural guardian.
Trial court’s finding was upheld by the High Court
12. The Trial Court undertook a thorough examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record, as well as the arguments made by both sides, to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the Accused No.1 was guilty of misusing his public office in order to accumulate disproportionate assets, which constituted ‘criminal misconduct’ under section 13 of the Act. Further, the present appellant, i.e. Accused no.2, was held guilty of abetment of the offence of Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It was specifically held that the accused had failed to establish that the assets treated as disproportionate by the prosecution were traceable to legitimate sources of income, since the evidence brought on record by the accused to prove the same was not satisfactory. These findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
Story of defence is A1 purchased the disproportionate assets from his brother
14. The story of defence that some portion of land, included in ‘disproportionate assets’, was purchased by Accused No.1 from his brother in the year 1988 (i.e. before the check period), but for which the sale deed was executed in favour of the children of the Accused No.1 and appellant only in the year 1994, is very difficult to believe, and the High Court and the Trial Court rightly rejected this line of reasoning.
15. The efforts to prove that the income alleged to be ‘disproportionate assets’ by the prosecution is from legitimate sources failed as the evidence presented by the defence was not only vague but lacked credibility as well.
Burden of proof is reversed and accused is to dislodge the presumption against him
16. We must also keep in mind that insofar as corruption cases under section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act are concerned, the burden of proof is reversed, and it becomes the responsibility of the accused to dislodge the presumption against him. This position has been reiterated by this Court in State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu (2023) 6 SCC 768:
“83. Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation”
In the present case, the prosecution succeeded in establishing that the accused were in possession of assets hugely disproportionate to their known sources of income. The prosecution had successfully discharged its initial burden. Thereafter, it was for the accused to satisfy the Court, through cogent evidence, that the assets are from legitimate sources. Upon perusal of the material on record and considering the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I am of the opinion that the accused miserably failed to discharge this burden of satisfactorily explaining the source of income behind the ‘disproportionate assets’.
Evaluation of assets was done by the High Court correctly
17. In fact, as far as the evaluation of disproportionate assets is concerned, I and my learned brother (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), both agree that the High Court has rightly evaluated the assets, after considering the material on record. The only point of our disagreement is the question of the culpability of the appellant (P. Nallammal). In the opinion of my learned brother Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., it was the appellant’s husband (Accused No.1) who had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and the prosecution could not prove that the appellant was aware that the money from which assets were being purchased or bought in her name, were from unlawful sources. It is this finding that I disagree with.
Mere registration of disproportionate assets in the name of public servant’s relative or friend does not make that person guilty of abetment
18. 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. Where there is abetment by a close relative in corruption matters, such as the spouse in the present case, the culpability of such a relative has to be tested by the surrounding circumstances and his/her overall conduct. This is because, in such cases, there would rarely be direct evidence of abetment. This factor has to be kept in mind.
In the case on hand the appellant allowed her husband to register the disproportionate assets in her name
20. Thus, it is not the case that there were only one or two transactions in the name of the appellant for which the appellant can say that she acted in a bona fide manner without knowing that the funds which were used for acquiring these assets were from unlawful sources. In my considered opinion, these transactions during the check period demonstrate how the appellant aided her husband in the accumulation of disproportionate assets by allowing him to register the same in her name. 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.
It is not the appellant’s case that she was not aware of her husband purchasing the properties in her name using the illegitimate sources
21. Moreover, it was never the appellant’s case that she was not aware that her husband had been purchasing the properties in her name by using the funds gained from illegitimate sources. From the Trial Court to this Court, what the appellant has only been unsuccessfully arguing is that her independent income was not taken into account and her assets prior to the check period were not properly assessed. All these grounds have already been dealt with by the Trial Court and High Court, and the appellant has failed to show that there has been any discrepancy in the evaluation of assets. Even on re-evaluation by the High Court, the High Court has only found a discrepancy of around Rs.2 lacs and even by reducing that amount from the total worth of disproportionate assets, the percentage of disproportionality remained above 400% of the accused’s known sources of income. There is no doubt that the appellant intentionally aided her husband in the accumulation of disproportionate assets.
Appellant’s previous case was relied by the High Court to convict her
22. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559 to hold the appellant guilty of abetment of the offence of Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. In that case, this Court had accepted the submission of the State that a person who is not a public servant, can also be an abettor for the offences under Section 13 of the PC Act. Accepting and reiterating the illustrations suggested by the State’s Counsel, it was observed by this Court as follows:
“para.24”
It is clear that the appellant’s case squarely falls within the third illustration produced above. Interestingly, the case cited above i.e. of P. Nallamal (Supra) relates to none other but the present appellant and her deceased husband, who had earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of the present criminal case.
Appellant actively participated in the purchase of various movable and immovable properties in her name
26. In no way can the facts of the above cases be compared to the case at hand. 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.
Conclusion: appeal dismissed and conviction confirmed
27. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the High Court. Also, like my brother Judge, I do not see any fault in the administrative order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the High Court. Accordingly, I dismiss all these appeals.
As per Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Conclusion: Appeal allowed and appellant acquitted
41. Consequently, the appeal arising from SLP (Criminal) No.2127/2024] is allowed; the appeal arising from SLP (Criminal) No.2288/2024 is dismissed, and; the appeals arising from SLP (Criminal) Nos.5196-5197/2024 are dismissed.
Case was placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice
Party
P. Nallammal v. State by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu – Criminal Appeal No. 2489 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 643 – May 07, 2025 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
