Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Guilt Of Ex-TN Minister's Wife In Whose Name Disproportionate Assets Were Registered

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 7) delivered a split verdict on the culpability of P. Nallammal, the wife of former Tamil Nadu Minister, for her alleged role in abetting her husband in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a split verdict in a case where A.M. Paramasivam, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and state minister during the 1991–1996 term, was accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife, Appellant-P. Nallammal was implicated for allegedly abetting this offence by holding benami properties in her name and their children's names.

Both the trial court and the Madras High Court convicted Paramasivam under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act and found Appellant-Nallammal guilty of abetment. While the High Court slightly modified the attachment order related to the properties, it upheld the convictions. Following Paramasivam's death, his legal heirs and Nallammal filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court.

In a split verdict, Justice Dhulia upheld the appellant's conviction, and Justice Amanullah acquitted her.

Justice Dhulia held that she had actively participated in acquiring properties in her name during her husband's ministerial tenure, fully aware that his lawful income could not support such purchases. Her inability to establish an independent source of income, he held, justified her conviction under Section 109 of the IPC for abetting her husband's offence. In support, he relied on P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559, where it was held that non-public servants can abet corruption offences.

“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 11 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.”, Justice Dhulia noted.

Whereas Justice Amanullah set aside the conviction, stating that the prosecution failed to establish mens rea on appellant's part, as mere registration of assets in Nallammal's name does not prove she knew the funds were illicit. Disagreeing with Justice Dhulia's opinion, Justice Amanullah stated the Court cannot ignore human realities, particularly typical conduct in marital relationships. He added that while criminal law allows certain presumptions, they cannot replace actual evidence. Therefore, presuming a relative's guilt solely because assets are in their name risks unfairly shifting the burden of proof and undermining the presumption of innocence beyond what the law permits, he said.

“This Court cannot be oblivious to human realities, especially the usual course of human conduct in marital relationships. We are cognizant of the presumptions provided for in criminal law, but the same by itself cannot supplant evidence. We reiterate that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. To presume culpability of a close relative of the public servant merely on the ground that certain transactions were made in such relative's name would be akin to reversing the burden of proof. This may have dangerous consequences and result in diluting the presumption of innocence, beyond what the statute in question contemplates.”

“The presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence and it gets dislodged only by presenting cogent and reliable evidence. Not for nothing is it stated that the accused is the favourite child of the law and to him/her enure all the benefits of doubt as available in law. There is absolutely no evidence on record, much less any evidence to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the 2nd Accused conspired/colluded with or intentionally aided the 1st Accused in committing offence(s) under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the acts of the 2nd Accused do not fall within the ambit of Section 107 of the IPC and in such circumstances, it would be unsafe to sustain her conviction with the aid of Section 109 of IPC.”, Justice Amanullah added.

In a nutshell, Justice Amanullah, relying on K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) 6 SCC 674 and State v. Uttamchand Bohra (2022) 16 SCC 663, stated that merely holding property does not constitute abetment unless there is clear evidence of conspiracy, instigation, or intentional assistance.

Since the prosecution failed to show any evidence of an abetment on the part of the Appellants towards the commission of the offence of disproportionate assets, Justice Amanullah set aside the conviction.

Given the aforesaid, the Court directed the Registry to place the case papers before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Case Title: P. NALLAMMAL Versus STATE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 545

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.