Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of Tamil Nadu Minister MRK Paneerselvam In Two Disproportionate Asset Cases

Justice P Velmurugan set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Cuddalore in 2016, discharging the Minister from the case filed by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The case was registered alleging that while serving as a Minister for Health and Family Welfare during 2006-2011, he had acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties far beyond his known sources of income.

The court noted prima facie materials to proceed against the Minister and his family, who had abetted him in amassing the wealth. The court also remarked that the trial judge had traversed beyond the scope of Section 239 CrPC and thus set aside the order of the Special Judge.

“Furthermore, prosecution has to be given an opportunity to prove its case and substantiate the materials collected during investigation. A reading of the entire materials and also the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, reveal that the learned trial Judge traversed beyond the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C. and this Court finds that there are prima facie materials to proceed with the case further against the accused,” the court said.

The court also noted that the findings assigned by the trial court were perverse and had to be interfered with.

“The grounds taken by the respondent/accused are nothing but defences, which are all matter for trial. In the present case, finding of the trial Judge is perverse and there is a compelling reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate,” the court said.

Though the Minister and his family claimed that the prosecution had failed to consider the background of the accused and that the source of income was laid with an ulterior motive, the court said that those were defences that could be taken at the time of the trial. The court added that at the time of framing the charge, the trial court need not go into each of the defences.

The Minister and his family also argued that the failure on the part of the prosecution would compel the accused to be a witness against themselves, which was against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It was argued that the accused would be compelled to prove that the Hindu Undivided Properties and the assets of the individuals were included by the prosecution in their case.

The court however, rejected this contention and said that in the present case, there was no compulsion for the accused to be a witness against themselves. The court noted that if the accused had independent sources of income, it should have been disclosed when the notice was served.

The second corruption case against Paneerselvam relates to alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets during his tenure as the Minister for Backward Classes and Welfare during 1996 to 2001. While setting aside the discharge, the court directed the Special Court to proceed with framing of the charges and complete the trial within 6 months.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr J. Ravindran, AAG, Assisted by Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Singaravelan, Senior Advocate for Mr.C.Prakasam

Case Title: State v. MRK Paneerselvam

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 159

Case No: Crl.R.C.Nos.583 to 585 of 2016