Supreme Court notice to Tamil Nadu govt on ex-minister's appeal

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government on appeals filed by former AIADMK minister V. Sathyamoorthy and his wife V. Chandra, convicted to undergo imprisonment of five years and two years in a corruption case.

A vacation Bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Ms. Indu Malhotra, after hearing senior counsel Guru Krishna Kumar and counsel Anand Padmanabhan refused to give any immediate relief to the appellants.

The bench while issuing notice on the SLPs also sought TN government’s reply on their plea for bail till the disposal of the appeal. The Bench directed the matter to be listed after 4 weeks.

On June 6, the Madras high court convicted former commercial taxes minister ‘Kadaladi’ V. Sathyamoorthy of the AIADMK, 73, and his wife V. Chandra, 62, in a 21-year-old disproportionate assets case.

They were sentenced to 5 and 2 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively and a fine of Rs 5 lakh each was slapped on them. The high court allowed a state appeal pending since 2001 and reversed their acquittal by a trial court on August 8, 2000. The couple was found guilty of having amassed wealth to the tune of Rs 83.32 lakh between January 1,1992, and May 13, 1996, as claimed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).

Assailing this order, they contended that the high court has reversed an order of acquittal in the absence of any substantial or compelling reasons to do so. The impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this court about the approach of high court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal. They argued that an order of acquittal could be reversed only for ‘good and sufficiently cogent reasons’ or for ‘strong reasons’.

The appellants are aggrieved by the clubbing of their income and properties despite the huge evidence produced by the defence and also spoken about by prosecution witness about the income earned by them individually.  The clubbing of the properties has resulted in great prejudice to their case. There was no evidence on record to show that any money traveled from the husband to his wife, who had a farm from which income was received.

The purchase of properties at regular intervals by the second appellant Chandra’s name and in the name of minor son was enough to demonstrate the grave error committed by the prosecution in clubbing the assets both moveable and immoveable of the appellant with that of her husband. While seeking to set aside the HC order, they pointed out that they were on bail throughout the pendency of the appeal in the high court and hence they should be released on bail considering their old age and medical condition.