National

DMK Minister K Ponmudy And Wife Sentenced To 3 Years In Jail In Disproportionate Assets Case

The Madras High Court on Thursday sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudy and his wife, P Visalakshi, to three years imprisonment in a Rs 1.75 crore disproportionate assets case

ED raids TN Minister Ponmudys premises
info_icon

The Madras High Court on Thursday sentenced Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudy and his wife, P Visalakshi, to three years imprisonment in a Rs 1.75 crore disproportionate assets case. The court has also imposed a fine of Rs 50 lakh each on the minister and his wife, with a provision of six more months of imprisonment if they fail to pay the fine. 

The duo need not surrender immediately as the court's judgement allows the minister and his wife to appeal to the Supreme Court or figure out other remedies within 30 days. With this conviction, Ponmudy will be disqualified as a legislator and his higher education portfolio will likely be given to another cabinet minister.

The case dates back to Ponmudy's tenure as as Tamil Nadu minister for higher education and mines between April 13, 2006, and May 13, 2010 under the DMK regime. It was alleged that the minister had acquired assets 65.99 per cent more than their known sources of income along with his wife and could not satisfactorily explain the source, according to a report by LiveLaw.

The Madras High Court found Ponmudy guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and his wife guilty of abetment. The court also noted that the 2016 acquittal order by a trial court in Villupuram was “palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable.”

Setting aside the trial court's order, Justice Jayachandran noted, “...The overwhelming evidence against the respondents and the unsustainable reasons given by the trial court for acquittal by ignoring those evidence compel this court to declare the judgment of the trial court is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable. Hence, this is a fit case for the appellate court to interfere and set it aside.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement