The Supreme Court recently delivered a split verdict in a significant case involving P. Nallammal, the wife of former Tamil Nadu Minister A.M. Paramasivam, who was accused of accumulating wealth beyond his known income sources. This case revolved around the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), particularly Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2), which deal with disproportionate assets.
The case was heard by a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. While Justice Dhulia upheld Nallammal’s conviction, Justice Amanullah acquitted her, leading to a split verdict.
Also Read - Supreme Court Refuses Third Party’s Plea for Former CJI UU Lalit’s Report in West Bengal VC Appointment Case
Justice Dhulia maintained that Nallammal actively participated in acquiring properties during her husband’s ministerial tenure, despite lacking an independent source of income. He emphasized that mere registration of assets in a relative’s name does not automatically mean guilt, but in this case, Nallammal’s involvement was evident.
"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. However, when a close relative, like a spouse, is involved, their conduct and surrounding circumstances must be carefully examined." — Justice Dhulia
Justice Dhulia also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559, where it was clarified that even non-public servants can abet corruption offences. He concluded that Nallammal was an accomplice in the crime due to her direct involvement.
In contrast, Justice Amanullah acquitted Nallammal, stating that the prosecution failed to prove her intent (mens rea) to abet the offence. He highlighted that just because assets were registered in her name, it cannot be assumed she knew they were acquired through corrupt means.
"Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence. Presuming the guilt of a close relative solely based on asset registration is against the presumption of innocence." — Justice Amanullah
Justice Amanullah emphasized that criminal law relies on evidence, not presumptions. He further clarified that in the absence of clear proof of Nallammal’s involvement, it would be unsafe to sustain her conviction. His decision also referenced judgments such as K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) 6 SCC 674 and State v. Uttamchand Bohra (2022) 16 SCC 663, which highlighted the need for clear evidence of abetment.
Due to the split verdict, the case has been referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions. This decision highlights the complex nature of corruption cases, especially when close relatives of public servants are involved.
Case Title: P. NALLAMMAL Versus STATE
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv, Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Ms. Deepa S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.
