New Delhi, May 8 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict in the appeal filed by P. Nallammal, wife of former Tamil Nadu Minister AM Paramasivam, in connection with her alleged abetment in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case is now referred to the Chief Justice of India for further directions.
The bench, comprising justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, differed in their opinions on whether Nallammal should be held criminally liable for abetting her husband in acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure (1991-1996) as a state minister.
While Justice Dhulia upheld the conviction, observing that Nallammal knowingly held benami properties in her and her children’s names to assist her husband in concealing illicit assets, Justice Amanullah acquitted her, citing lack of evidence establishing criminal intent.
Justice Dhulia reasoned that Nallammal’s active participation in purchasing properties during her husband’s tenure and her failure to show independent sources of income justified her conviction under Section 109 IPC (abetment) read with sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act.
Citing P. Nallammal v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559, he affirmed that even non-public servants can abet offences under the PC Act.
“Where there is abetment by a close relative in corruption matters, such as the spouse in the present case, the culpability… has to be tested by surrounding circumstances and overall conduct,” Justice Dhulia stated.
In contrast, Justice Amanullah held that the prosecution failed to establish any evidence of intentional aid or conspiracy on Nallammal’s part. He cautioned against diluting the presumption of innocence simply because assets were registered in a spouse’s name.
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence… Presuming culpability merely on the ground that certain transactions were made in the relative’s name would reverse the burden of proof,” he observed.
He relied on K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) and State v. Uttamchand Bohra (2022) to support the view that property ownership alone does not constitute abetment without proof of instigation or conspiracy.
In light of the split, the court directed the Registry to place the case papers before the Chief Justice of India for assigning the matter to a larger bench or an appropriate third judge for the final decision.
