# P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 643
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2489 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sudhanshu Dhulia, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-nallammal-v-state-by-the-inspector-of-police-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-38694
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Matter pertains to appeal challenging the conviction and sentence
of the appellant u/s.109 IPC r/w ss.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of PC Act;
appeal challenging the attachment Order as modified by the High
Court; and the appeal challenging the Administrative Order passed
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1855
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
by the Chief Justice of the High Court by which criminal appeals
were listed for fresh hearing.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - s.109 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
ss.13(2), 13(1)(e) - Offences under, abettable by a non-public
servant - Appellant accused of abetting her husband, an MLAaccused no. 1, in the accumulation of disproportionate assets -
Trial court convicted accused no. 1 u/ss.13(2) and 13(1)(e) of
the PC Act, whereas the appellant-accused no.2 u/ss.13(2) and
13(1)(e) of the PC Act r/w s.109 IPC, and sentenced accordingly -
Attachment Order passed attaching the disproportionate assets
belonging to the accused no. 1 and the appellant - Appeal
thereagainst dismissed by the High Court, however, the
High Court modified the attachment order by reducing the
quantum of the disproportionate assets calculated by the trial
court - Appeal before this Court challenging the impugned
order upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence; the
attachment Order as modified by the impugned order; and the
Administrative Order by which the Chief Justice of the High
Court had listed the criminal appeals for fresh hearing:
Held: Per Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J: It is for the prosecution
to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and a solitary
circumstance of name-lending, such as the one at present, cannot
lead to draw and sustain an inference which unerringly points to
the guilt of the appellant - There has to be something more in
the form of positive evidence to satisfy the essential requirements
for the offence of abetment - Life and liberty are not things to be
trifled with on the basis of conjectures and surmises - Presumption
of innocence is a basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence and it gets
dislodged only by presenting cogent and reliable evidence - No
evidence on record, much less any evidence to satisfy the standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the appellant
conspired/colluded with or intentionally aided the 1st Accused in
committing offences u/ss.13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) - Thus, the acts of
the appellant do not fall within the ambit of s.107 and in such
circumstances, it would be unsafe to sustain her conviction with
the aid of s.109 IPC - Impugned Order set aside to the extent
of conviction of the appellant and she stands discharged of the
liability of her bail bonds and sureties - Since the appellant is
acquitted, the attachment order does not require any interference
as it attaches the assets standing in her name beyond the value
1856
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
which has been explained by the appellant and accepted by the
courts below - Impugned Administrative Order, having worked
itself out, does not call for any interference - As evincible from the
impugned Administrative Order, there did not exist any 'Judgment',
the then Chief Justice of the High Court, thus, cannot be faulted
for restoring the criminal appeal for fresh hearing. [Paras 36-40]
Per Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Partly dissenting): 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 because in such cases, there would rarely be
direct evidence of abetment - Appellant was an accomplice in the
commission of the crime when she allowed accused no.1 to register
the properties in her name - 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 appellant had visite

## Text

_Characters 0–39,837 of 83,796. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39837 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1854 : 2025 INSC 643
P. Nallammal
v.
State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Appeal No. 2489 of 2025)
With
(Criminal Appeal No. 2490 of 2025)
Tmt. P. Nallammal & Ors.
A1: Tmt. P. Nallammal
A2: Thiru A. M. Paramasivam (Died) Through Lrs.
A2.1: P. Rajakumar Pandian
A2.2: P. Selvakumar Pandiyan
A2.3: Selvi Suriyakala @ Sudarsena
v.
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Inspector of Police
With
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2491-2492 of 2025)
Thiru A. M. Paramasivam (Died) Through Lrs. & Ors.
A1.1: Tmt. P. Nallammal
A1.2: P. Rajakumar Pandian
A1.3: P. Selvakumar Pandiyan
A1.4: Selvi Suriyakala @ Sudarsena
v.
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Inspector of Police
07 May 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to appeal challenging the conviction and sentence
of the appellant u/s.109 IPC r/w ss.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of PC Act;
appeal challenging the attachment Order as modified by the High
Court; and the appeal challenging the Administrative Order passed
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1855
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
by the Chief Justice of the High Court by which criminal appeals
were listed for fresh hearing.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - s.109 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
ss.13(2), 13(1)(e) - Offences under, abettable by a non-public
servant - Appellant accused of abetting her husband, an MLAaccused no. 1, in the accumulation of disproportionate assets -
Trial court convicted accused no. 1 u/ss.13(2) and 13(1)(e) of
the PC Act, whereas the appellant-accused no.2 u/ss.13(2) and
13(1)(e) of the PC Act r/w s.109 IPC, and sentenced accordingly -
Attachment Order passed attaching the disproportionate assets
belonging to the accused no. 1 and the appellant - Appeal
thereagainst dismissed by the High Court, however, the
High Court modified the attachment order by reducing the
quantum of the disproportionate assets calculated by the trial
court - Appeal before this Court challenging the impugned
order upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence; the
attachment Order as modified by the impugned order; and the
Administrative Order by which the Chief Justice of the High
Court had listed the criminal appeals for fresh hearing:
Held: Per Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J: It is for the prosecution
to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and a solitary
circumstance of name-lending, such as the one at present, cannot
lead to draw and sustain an inference which unerringly points to
the guilt of the appellant - There has to be something more in
the form of positive evidence to satisfy the essential requirements
for the offence of abetment - Life and liberty are not things to be
trifled with on the basis of conjectures and surmises - Presumption
of innocence is a basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence and it gets
dislodged only by presenting cogent and reliable evidence - No
evidence on record, much less any evidence to satisfy the standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the appellant
conspired/colluded with or intentionally aided the 1st Accused in
committing offences u/ss.13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) - Thus, the acts of
the appellant do not fall within the ambit of s.107 and in such
circumstances, it would be unsafe to sustain her conviction with
the aid of s.109 IPC - Impugned Order set aside to the extent
of conviction of the appellant and she stands discharged of the
liability of her bail bonds and sureties - Since the appellant is
acquitted, the attachment order does not require any interference
as it attaches the assets standing in her name beyond the value
1856
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
which has been explained by the appellant and accepted by the
courts below - Impugned Administrative Order, having worked
itself out, does not call for any interference - As evincible from the
impugned Administrative Order, there did not exist any 'Judgment',
the then Chief Justice of the High Court, thus, cannot be faulted
for restoring the criminal appeal for fresh hearing. [Paras 36-40]
Per Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Partly dissenting): 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 because in such cases, there would rarely be
direct evidence of abetment - Appellant was an accomplice in the
commission of the crime when she allowed accused no.1 to register
the properties in her name - 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 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 - Trial court and the
High Court 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 u/s.109 IPC r/w s.13(1)(e)
and s.13(2), thus, no reason to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the High Court - No fault in the administrative order
passed by the High Court. [Paras 15-19, 20, 21, 26, 27]
Per curiam: In view of difference of opinion pertaining to the
impugned order upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence,
the Registry to place the papers of the appeal before the Chief
Justice of India for appropriate directions. [Paras 1, 3]
Case Law Cited
In the Judgment of Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State [1999] Supp. 1 SCR 135 : (1999) 6
SCC 559 - relied on.
K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 97 :
(2001) 6 SCC 674; State v. Uttamchand Bohra [2021] 9 SCR 821 :
(2022) 16 SCC 663 - distinguished.
State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu [2022] 7 SCR 630 : (2023) 6
SCC 768 - referred to.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1857
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
In the Judgment of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State [1999] Supp. 1 SCR 135 : (1999) 6
SCC 559; K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [2001] Supp. 1
SCR 97 : (2001) 6 SCC 674; State v. Uttamchand Bohra [2021]
9 SCR 821 : (2022) 16 SCC 663; Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v.
State of Maharashtra [2023] 11 SCR 1135 : 2023 SCC OnLine
1038- relied on.
DSP v. K Inbasagaran (2006) 1 SCC 420; Kartarey v State of Uttar
Pradesh [1976] 2 SCR 199 : AIR 1976 SC 76; Reena Hazarika v.
State of Assam [2018] 13 SCR 1108 : (2019) 13 SCC 289; State
of Karnataka v. J Jayalalithaa [2017] 5 SCR 525 : (2017) 6 SCC
263; Kedari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 14 SCC 505;
State of Tamil Nadu v. R Soundirarasu (2023) 6 SCC 768; Kishori
Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh [2007] 7 SCR 1051 : (2007) 10
SCC 797; State through Inspector of Police CBI Chennai v. Naresh
Prasad Agarwal (2024) 3 SCC 515; State through the Inspector
of Police CBI, ACB, Chennai v. S Murali Mohan, Criminal Appeal
No. 4166/2024 - referred to.
List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Penal Code, 1860; Criminal
Law (Amendment) Ordinance Act, 1944.
List of Keywords
Public Servant; Relative of public servant; Corruption;
Disproportionate assets; Check period; Abetment; Attachment
Order; Administrative Order; Chief Justice of the High Court
listed the criminal appeals for fresh hearing; Registry to place
the papers of the appeal before the Chief Justice of India for
appropriate directions; Offences abettable by a non-public servant;
MLA; Accumulation of disproportionate assets; Bonafide belief;
Presumption in law; Illegal acquisitions; Presumption of innocence;
Criminal jurisprudence; Abetment by close relative in corruption
matters; Difference of opinion.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2489 of 2025
1858
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 1170 of 2000
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2490 and 2491-2492 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, R. Sudhakaran, Shreyas
Kaushal, Bilal Mansoor, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K
Advs. for the Respondent:
D. Kumanan, Ms. Deepa S, Sheikh F Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Chinmay
Anand Panigrahi.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
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.
2.
I would, first of all, make it clear that the delivery of this order has
taken more time than usual. But then I was only handed over his
opinion by my learned Brother a fortnight back and it has taken this
much of time further for me to give my reasons.
3.
Leave granted.
4.
There are four appeals before us:
a.
Appeal arising from SLP (Crl) No.2127/2024 filed by the Accused
No.2 (P. Nallammal) challenging the impugned order dated
20.11.2023 by which appellant's conviction and sentence of
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1859
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
one year R.I for offence under Section 109 of IPC read with
Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of PC Act by the Trial Court,
has been affirmed.
b.
Appeal arising from SLP (Crl) No.2288/2024 filed by Accused
No.2 and Legal Heirs of the Accused No.1 (children of the
Accused No.1 and Accused No.2), challenging the attachment
Order as modified by the impugned order dated 20.11.2023.
c.
Appeals arising from SLP (Crl) No.5196-5197/2024 filed by
the Legal Heirs of the Accused No.1 (children of the Accused
No.1 and Accused No.2), challenging the Administrative Order
dated 03.03.2022 by which the Chief Justice of the High Court
had listed the criminal appeals for fresh hearing which finally
resulted in the common impugned order dated 20.11.2023 by
which order of Accused No.2's conviction and sentence as well
as the order of the attachment, with modification, were affirmed.
5.
For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case are being taken
from the Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2127 of 2024.
However, the facts are not being reproduced in detail.
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.
1860
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
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.
8.
At the outset, I must note that there are concurrent findings against
the accused in this case, holding her guilty of abetment in amassing
disproportionate assets during Accused No.1's tenure in public office
i.e. between 16.06.1991 and 09.05.1996 (hereinafter 'check period').
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.
10. On the other hand, defence would argue that the figure of
disproportionate assets arrived at by the prosecution was grossly
exaggerated and based on arbitrary calculations. They had also
challenged the inclusion of many immovable properties by the
prosecution, arguing that these were acquired before the check
period. It was also the contention that their assets were traceable to
legitimate sources of income, such as income from agriculture, gifts
etc. and this was forthcoming from the Income Tax returns submitted
by them. Moreover, the counsel for the appellant would also argue
that the present appellant, in any case, is not a public servant and
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1861
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
thus, she has no obligation to explain her sources of income and
further, she cannot be convicted under Section 109 of IPC read with
Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2).
11. We have heard both sides and perused the record.
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.
13. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant also tried to argue
that many of the assets considered by the Courts as 'disproportionate
assets', were actually gifted by the father of the appellant at the time
of her marriage to accused No.1. Further, a substantial portion of the
immovable properties sought to be included in the 'disproportionate
assets' by the prosecution were, in fact, purchased long before the
check period. These arguments have rightly been disbelieved as
the Trial Court arrived at a specific finding on these on examination
of documents and witnesses which show that the properties were
purchased only between March and May 1996, which falls within
the check period.
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
1862
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
evidence presented by the defence was not only vague but lacked
credibility as well.
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'.
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1863
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
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.
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.
19. The appellant married Accused No.1 in the year 1983 and she was
a housewife without any independent source of income. After going
through the records, the High Court notes that from the year of
marriage (i.e.1983) till 1991, there is no acquisition of immovable
property either in the name of the appellant or Accused No.1. Accused
No.1 became MLA in the year 1991 and minister in the year 1993
and then the acquisition of properties, moveable and immovable,
also starts. After perusing the document showing the properties
acquired by the accused, the Trial Court observed how land was
purchased in the name of the appellant or in the name of minor
children through the appellant, on more than one occasion. This is
what was observed by the Trial Court:
"(5) On 25.11.92, the 2nd Accused purchased 0.45 Acres
of land for a sale consideration of Rs.16,875 situated at
Kodikulam Village under Ex.P.2, Stamp fee is Rs.2,030,
PW-1, PW-46 deposed about sale. (6) On 14.02.1992,
the 2nd Accused purchased 9 cents of land for a sale
consideration of Rs. 4500 situated at Kodikulam Village
under Ex. P.11, Stamp fee is Rs.540, PW-2, PW-48
deposed about sale. (7) On 16.04.1993, the 2nd Accused
purchased 1.45 acre of land for a sale consideration of
1864
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Rs.64,980 on behalf of Selvakumar Pandian situated at
Kodikulum Village under Ex.P.3, Stamp fee is Rs.7860,
PW-1, PW-47 deposed about sale. (8) On 22.09.1993,
the 2nd Accused purchased a house situated at K.K
Nagar, Madurai and 1 cents of land situated at Kerala,
for a sale consideration of Rs1,50,000 under Ex.P.16,
Stamp fee is Rs.9050, PW-4, PW-44 deposed about
sale. On 04.04.1994, the 2nd Accused purchased 2.48
acres of Nanja land for a sale consideration of Rs.80,600
on behalf of Selvakumar Pandian situated at Kodikulam
Village under Ex.P.4, Stamp fee is Rs.9680, PW-1,
PW-54 deposed about sale. (10) On 12.09.1994, the 2nd
Accused purchased 2.43 acres of Nanja land for a sale
consideration of Rs.1,23,160 on behalf of Selvakumar
Pandian situated at Kodikulam Village under Ex.P.5, Stamp
fee is Rs.14,860, PW-1, PW-45 deposed about sale. (11)
On 23.09.1994, the 2nd Accused purchased 1.29 acre of
Nanja land for a sale consideration of Rs.70,950 on behalf
of Selvakumar Pandian situated at Kodikulam Village under
EX.P.6, Stamp fee is Rs.8520, PW-1, Pw-49 deposed
about sale.....(14) On 11.04.1996, the 2nd Accused
purchased 4.27 acres Nanja land for a sale consideration
of Rs.2,32,210 on behalf of daughter Suriyakala situated
at Kodikulam Village under Ex.P.7, Stamp fee is Rs.28000,
PW-1, PW-51 deposed about sale....(16) On 06.05.1996,
the 2nd Accused purchased 1.61 acre of Nanja land for
a sale consideration of Rs.87,620 on behalf of Rajkumar
Pandian situated at Kodikulam Village under Ex.P.6, Stamp
fee is Rs.10,680, PW-1, PW-50 deposed about sale...."
Not only this, but additionally, two cars and other movable and
immovable properties were also purchased in the name of the
appellant and the minor children through the appellant.
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1865
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
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.
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.
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:
"24....
The first illustration cited is this:
If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of
how other public servants have become more wealthy by
receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do
the same in order to become rich and the public servant
acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be
any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.
1866
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Next illustration is this:
Four persons including the public servant decide to raise
a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons
prompt the public servant to keep such money in their
names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons
are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.
The last illustration is this:
If a public servant tells A, a close friend of his, that he
has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he
cannot keep them as he has no known source of income
to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A's
name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it
is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under
the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.
25. Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence
under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act can be abetted by
non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such
offender is through the trial envisaged in the PC Act."
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.
23. My learned brother has also discussed two other cases of this Court,
though in my humble opinion, these are distinguishable on facts and
would be of no help to the appellant.
24. The first case is K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) 6
SCC 674. In this case, the High Court upheld the conviction of the
main accused for acquiring disproportionate assets while his wife
and daughter were acquitted. When the main accused came before
this Court, this Court dismissed his criminal appeal, whereas in
relation to the acquittal of wife and daughter, this Court did not say
anything since the State had submitted that they are going to file an
appeal challenging the acquittal of the daughter and wife of the main
accused. No such appeal was filed by the State. On the contrary, the
wife and daughter of the main accused therein approached this Court
challenging the order confiscating their properties. This Court remitted
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1867
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
the matter to the High Court on the ground that the Courts below did
not record proper reasons for confiscating the properties belonging to
the wife and daughter. Finally, the High Court gave directions for the
exclusion of their assets from the order of confiscation, considering
that they stand acquitted in the matter. However, that case cannot
be read as a decision in favour of the daughter and wife, since the
innocence or guilt of the daughter and wife of the public servant
involved in that case was never an issue before this Court. Hence,
that case cannot come to the aid of the present appellant.
25. The second case which my learned brother relies upon is State v.
Uttamchand Bohra (2022) 16 SCC 663. The facts of this case are
also totally distinguishable from the case at hand. In that case, a
public servant (main accused) working for the Central Government
was accused of buying some property, in the name of a company
named M/s Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., using the money from
his unknown sources of income. There one Uttamchand Bohra
(respondent therein) was also made an accused, alleging that he had
abetted the public servant in the accumulation of disproportionate
assets inasmuch as Uttamchand Bohra's employee was the witness
of the sale deed, and title deeds were also recovered from his house.
The respondent moved a discharge application, which was dismissed
by the Trial court. Later, in revision, the High Court quashed the case
against Uttamchand Bohra. Thereafter, the State approached this
Court against the order of the High Court. This Court dismissed the
State's appeal and affirmed the order of the High Court. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as follows:
"25. The charge-sheet further does not contain any
allegation which can amount to an offence under Section
109IPC. The prosecution has not suggested that he
abetted A-1 to acquire disproportionate assets in any
manner; the only allegation is that the title deeds to the
flat, which is in the name of M/s Raviteja Trading Co.
Pvt. Ltd. was seized from his custody and that he had
instructed his employee to witness the document. An
allegation of the existence of signatures of Uttamchand's
employee, as a witness to the sale deed cannot amount
to his aiding or abetting A-1 to acquire disproportionate
assets. Witnessing a sale deed is a formal requirement.
Likewise, the fact that the sale deed was in Uttamchand's
1868
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
residence cannot satisfy the ingredient of any of the
offences alleged against him.
26. The statements of the approvers, A-3 and A-4, who
were tendered pardon by the Court, do not reveal any
involvement by Uttamchand in commission of the alleged
offence. During the pendency of the present proceedings
the recording of depositions of 74 witnesses was
completed. Those were part of this Court's record; they do
not show any incriminating material as far as Uttamchand
is concerned. Furthermore, crucially, the money trail for
the property bought under the sale deed, does not show
Uttamchand's involvement. It may implicate A-3 and A-4,
however as stated before, the Court has granted a pardon
to them, for which they have turned approvers.
....
29. CBI cannot deny that Uttamchand's name was included
in the present case, although the sale deed was seized
during a search conducted in relation to another FIR (the
earlier case) - and not in relation to the present case,
which relates to the disproportionate assets case. The
FIR in the present case names only A-1 and A-2 as the
accused. The sale deed had already been seized from
Uttamchand's house by then.
....
36. An entire overview of the material produced before the
trial court, with the charge-sheet and final report, as well as
deposition of the 74 witnesses who were examined during
the trial, does not support CBI›s allegation of Uttamchand.
He did not directly or indirectly finance the transaction
by which property was sold to M/s Raviteja Trading Co.
Pvt. Ltd., which, according to that prosecution, was in
fact by A-1. The respondent also is not alleged to have
facilitated the flow of money to fund acquisition of the flat.
The material put against him is that the sale deed was
seized, prior to the present case. The other circumstance
put against him is that his employee witnessed the sale
deed. The respondent is concededly neither the owner,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1869
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
nor has any links with M/s Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no
material which can prima facie support an inference that
Uttamchand was either a conspirator or had abetted the
commission of the offences alleged against the accused
A-1 is made out."
(Emphasis Provided)
Thus, it is clear that the facts of the above case are entirely distinct
from the present matter. The accused in that case had no involvement
in the offence as the assets were allegedly purchased by the
public servant in the name of a company with which the accused
(Uttamchand Bohra) had nothing to do. The only allegations against
Uttamchand Bohra were that the title deeds were recovered from his
residence, and that one of his employees was a witness to the sale
deed by which assets disproportionate to known sources of income
were purchased by the public servant.
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.
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.
28. The appellant is directed to surrender within ten weeks from today
to undergo her remaining sentence.
29. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.
30. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
1870
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The present appeals arise from a common set of facts and have,
therefore, been heard together, and are disposed of by this Judgment.
It is necessary to first advert to the relevant factual background,
wherefrom the instant appeals have traversed to this Court.
FACTUAL LENS:
3.
A. M. Paramasivam (hereinafter also referred to as the '1st Accused')
was an elected Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
during the period 16.06.1991 to 09.05.1996. He also served as the
Minister for Labour Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu during the
period 17.05.1993 to 09.05.1996. On 20.08.1996, CR No.5/AC/96/
Headquarters was registered against him and his wife, P. Nallamal
(hereinafter referred to as the '2nd Accused') alleging acquisition
of properties beyond known pecuniary resources, which were
disproportionate to the extent of Rs.38,72,545/- during the Check
Period i.e., between 16.06.1991 to 09.05.1996. The 1st Accused and
2nd Accused are hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'Accused'.
4.
A. M. Paramasivam was charged for the offence under Section 13(2)
read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act') for acquiring properties and pecuniary resources
which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to the
extent of Rs.38,72,545/-, which he had not satisfactorily accounted
for. Whereas, P. Nallamal was tried for offence under Section 109
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC')
read with Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Act for abetting the
offence by permitting the 1st Accused to acquire a substantial portion
of the properties in her name and in the names of her minor children
and for holding such properties on his behalf.
5.
Before the learned III Special Judge/XIII Additional Judge, Chennai
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), on behalf of the prosecution,
62 witnesses (PW1 to PW62) were examined, 160 Exhibits (Ex.P1
to Ex.P160) were marked along with 31 material objects (MO1 to
MO31). On the side of the defence, 30 witness (DW1 to DW30) were
examined and 15 Exhibits (Ex.D1 to Ex.D15) were marked.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1871
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
6.
The Trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2000 determined
the value of the assets acquired by the 1st Accused disproportionate to
his known source of income as being Rs.35,25,136/- for the purpose of
action under Section 12 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance
Act, 1944, and convicted both the 1st and 2nd Accused:
Accused
Offence
[under the Act as it
then stood]
Conviction and Sentence
1st Accused
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(c) of the Act
To undergo two years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/. In default of payment
of fine, to undergo 2 months
further Simple Imprisonment.
2nd Accused
Section 109, IPC r/w
13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of
the Act
To undergo one year Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.5000/-. In default of payment
of fine, to undergo 1 month further
Simple Imprisonment.
7.
In view of the above conviction, the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Madurai by Order dated 03.01.2001 in Crl. O.P. No.2 of 1997
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Attachment Order') made the earlier
interim attachment order dated 06.03.1997 of the schedule-mentioned
properties in Crl. M.P. No.1168/1997, absolute and ordered that the
amount of Rs.35,25,136/- shall be recovered by forfeiture of the
attached properties.
8.
The 1st and 2nd Accused filed Criminal Appeal No.1170/2000
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Criminal Appeal') before the High
Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the 'High
Court') challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Trial Court. Along with this Criminal Appeal, the accused filed Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.425/2001 challenging the Attachment
Order. With the leave of the High Court, the accused marked two
additional documents as Ex.D16 & Ex.D17.
9.
The story takes a rather interesting turn from here. It would be material
to note the case of the appellants.