K. PONNUSWAMY versus STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION SOUTH RANGE, TRICHY

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 31-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. PONNUSWAMY 
V. 
STATE OF i:AMILNADU BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION 
SOUTH RANGE, TRIC}IY 
JULY 31, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIA VA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sections 13(1) and 13(2)- C 
Prosecution of public servant for having pecuniary resources and property 
disproportionate to known sources of income acquired during his tenure as 
Minister-Gifts made by his nephew out of love and affection-Held, on natural 
presumption and human conduct, appellant used his nephew for transfer of 
monies to appellant's wife and daughter-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3 
and ll4. 
D 
Appellant, before being elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly, 
was employed as a lecturer in a Government College. He was earning a 
meagre salary and his financial condition was such that he could not even 
repay his small debts. Creditors had to recover the amounts by filing suits 
and executing decrees. After being elected, he was a Minister for about 3 years. E 
During this tenure (check period), he acquired in his name and in the names 
of his wife, daughter, nephew and another close relative, pecuniary resources 
and property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Trial Court 
convicted the appellant and other accused under Section 13(1)(e) read with 
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and ordered F 
confiscation of the pecuniary resources and properties to the extent of about 
Rs. 77.50 lakhs. The appellant and other accused filed Criminal Appeals before 
High Court against the conviction and the order of confiscation. The High 
Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant and acquitted other accused. 
The High Court, while upholding the confiscation order in respect of the assets 
of the appellant, his wife and daughter, however, held that the assets standing G 
in the names of the other two accused should be excluded from confiscation. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that he did not have 
any pecuniary resources or properties disproportionate to his known sources 
of income, which had been established by the High Court; that the prosecution 
97 
H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A had failed to prove that the properties standing in the names of his wife and 
daughter were held by them on behalf of the appellant; that the prosecution 
had failed to prove that these were Benami properties of the appellant; that 
the properties standing in the names of his wife and daughter were gifted by 
hi~ nephew out of love and affection; that his nephew was acquitted by the 
B High Court on the ground that the prosecution has not investigated into his 
personal source of income. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. I. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt 
C that prior to the check period, the appellant, his wife and daughter had no 
real source of income, except some meagre incomes. The appellant only earned 
a small salary as a Lecturer and his wife had small agricultural and other 
income. His daughter, being a student, had no real source of income. Prior 
to the check period, the financial condition of the family was such that the 
appellant could not even repay his small debts. Creditors had to recover their 
D amounts by filing suits and executing decrees. (107-C, DJ 
1.2. Presuming his nephew had independent income, prior to the check 
period he had not been afflicted by any love and affection and had not made 
any gifts to any member of the family of the appellant. Prior to the check 
E period, the nephew did not even extend help to pay off the small debts of the 
appellant even after decrees had been passed against the appellant. Yet 
suddenly, during the check period, when the appellant was a Minister, the 
nephew donated large sums of money to the appellant's wife and daughter. 
The natural presumption, considering the common course of natural events 
and human conduct is that the appellant would have used his nephew to 
F transfer his monies to his wife and daughter. This is the supposition which 
any prudent man under these circumstances would act upon considering the 
natural course of events. The Trial Court and the High Court thus rightly 
took this as proved by legal evidence. The prosecution, having established by 
legal evidence that the monies were transferred by the appellant to his wife 
G and daughter through his nephew and that these there monies of the appellant 
in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.