Madras HC Upholds Conviction Of Former Tamil Nadu Minister Aranganayagam In Disproportionate Assets Case
|The Madras High Court upheld the conviction of C. Aranganayagam (deceased), former Minister for Labour and Education, Government of Tamil Nadu and MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking setting aside of the judgment of the Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
A Single Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran remarked, “From out his of savings of Rs.4,68,296/-, A-1 had added wealth worth Rs.19,17,316. From the evidence as discussed above, the prosecution has proved that A-1 not able to explain satisfactorily the source for Rs.14,49,020/- Thus, the disproportionate assets to the known source of income of a public servant well proved. The percentage of disproportion is (Rs.14,49,020 x 100/24,16,029) = 59.5% approximately. Since, the prosecution has proved that A1 had in his possession assets worth about 59.5% more and above his explained source of income, the conviction against A1 stands confirmed.”
Senior Advocate N. Muralikumaran appeared for the appellant while Government Advocate K.M.D. Muhilan appeared for the respondent.
In this case, a crime was registered in 1996 in connection with possession of disproportionate assets by the appellant. The investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police and Special Investigation Cell culminated in filing the final report against him, his wife, and two sons. Charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were framed against the accused.
The Trial Court held the appellant guilty of offence and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Further, it ordered confiscation of properties purchased by the accused during the check period. Rest of the accused persons i.e., family members were not found guilty and hence, were acquitted. Being aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant preferred criminal appeal. He died in 2021 and therefore, his legal heirs got impleaded to continue the said appeal.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “The above finding of the trial Court in respect of A-2 to A-4 leading to their acquittal is a possible view and backed by reasons. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court acquitting A-2 to A-4 has to be confirmed. … Having confirmed the acquittal of A-2 to A-4, it is the duty of this Court to find out whether the source for the properties held by A-1 at the end of the check period satisfactorily explained by the accused or was disproportionate to his known source of income.”
The Court observed that the claim of the accused that he was star platform Speaker for his party and earned Rs. 15,00,000/- as remuneration during the check period are claims without evidence and hence, the Trial Court rightly discarded it.
“There is no major dispute regarding the expenditure during the check period shown in Statement-IV, except the fuel cost and marriage expenses of two sons. The claim of fuel cost disallowance is made on the ground that A-1 used Government vehicle and he did not incur any fuel expenses for his car. This contention failed to carry merit, since A-1 was Minister for less than three years. He had three more cars purchased in his name during the check period. A-1 to A-4 were sharing common household and living under one roof during the check period”, it noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Cause Title- C. Aranganayagam (Deceased) v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate N. Muralikumaran and Advocate R. Gopinath.
Respondent: Government Advocate K.M.D. Muhilan