LexP. NALLAMMAL versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICE, DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1854 : 2025 INSC 643 P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal No. 2489 of 2025) With (Criminal Appeal No. 2490 of 2025) Tmt. P. Nallammal & Ors. A1: Tmt. P. Nallammal A2: Thiru A. M. Paramasivam (Died) Through Lrs. A2.1: P. Rajakumar Pandian A2.2: P. Selvakumar Pandiyan A2.3: Selvi Suriyakala @ Sudarsena v. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Inspector of Police With (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2491-2492 of 2025) Thiru A. M. Paramasivam (Died) Through Lrs. & Ors. A1.1: Tmt. P. Nallammal A1.2: P. Rajakumar Pandian A1.3: P. Selvakumar Pandiyan A1.4: Selvi Suriyakala @ Sudarsena v. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Inspector of Police 07 May 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.109 IPC r/w ss.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of PC Act; appeal challenging the attachment Order as modified by the High Court; and the appeal challenging the Administrative Order passed * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1855 P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu by the Chief Justice of the High Court by which criminal appeals were listed for fresh hearing. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.109 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(2), 13(1)(e) – Offences under, abettable by a non-public servant – Appellant accused of abetting her husband, an MLA- accused no. 1, in the accumulation of disproportionate assets – Trial court convicted accused no. 1 u/ss.13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, whereas the appellant-accused no.2 u/ss.13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act r/w s.109 IPC, and sentenced accordingly – Attachment Order passed attaching the disproportionate assets belonging to the accused no. 1 and the appellant – Appeal thereagainst dismissed by the High Court, however, the High Court modified the attachment order by reducing the quantum of the disproportionate assets calculated by the trial court – Appeal before this Court challenging the impugned order upholding the appellant’s conviction and sentence; the attachment Order as modified by the impugned order; and the Administrative Order by which the Chief Justice of the High Court had listed the criminal appeals for fresh hearing: Held: Per Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J: It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and a solitary circumstance of name-lending, such as the one at present, cannot lead to draw and sustain an inference which unerringly points to the guilt of the appellant – There has to be something more in the form of positive evidence to satisfy the essential requirements for the offence of abetment – Life and liberty are not things to be trifled with on the basis of conjectures and surmises – Presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence and it gets dislodged only by presenting cogent and reliable evidence – No evidence on record, much less any evidence to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the appellant conspired/colluded with or intentionally aided the 1st Accused in committing offences u/ss.13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) – Thus, the acts of the appellant do not fall within the ambit of s.107 and in such circumstances, it would be unsafe to sustain her conviction with the aid of s.109 IPC – Impugned Order set aside to the extent of conviction of the appellant and she stands discharged of the liability of her bail bonds and sureties – Since the appellant is acquitted, the attachment order does not require any interference as it attaches the assets standing in her name beyond the value 1856 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports which has been explained by the appellant and accepted by the courts below – Impugned Administrative Order, having worked itself out, does not call for any interference – As evincible from the impugned Administrative Order, there did not exist any ‘Judgment’, the then Chief Justice of the High Court, thus, cannot be faulted for restoring the criminal appeal for fresh hearing. [Paras 36-40] Per Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Partly dissenting): 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 co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.