The Madras High Court upheld the verdict from 23 years ago, which involved the sentencing of the late AM Paramasivam, a former Minister for Labour Welfare, and his wife under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court confirmed the one-year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the minister’s wife, Nallammal, after reviewing the appeal against the Special Judge's order.

During his tenure as a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from 1991 to 1996, Paramasivam held the role of Minister for Labour Welfare in the Tamil Nadu government from 1993 to 1996. Throughout this period, both Paramasivam and his wife accumulated properties that exceeded their known financial resources as evaluated between 1991 and 1996.

Justice G Jayachandran noted that as a public servant, the Minister had amassed wealth that was 400% higher than his reported income from legitimate sources. Additionally, his wife had participated in acquiring properties using undisclosed means, implicating them both in offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The appellants argued that the case against Paramasivam stemmed from political rivalry. They highlighted that given Paramasivam's passing and his wife's age of over 80 years, enduring the stress of criminal prosecution for more than 25 years, there was a plea for sparing her from further incarceration.

During the Course of hearing, The court noted that that since the minimum sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment was imposed, Therefore, any further reduction was not permissible, indicating that Nallammal would have to serve at least the prescribed minimum sentence.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision to forfeit properties for the recovery of amounts but revised the sum to be recovered from Rs 35,25,136/- to Rs 33,25,165/-, adding interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of interim attachment on March 6th, 1997. Nallammal contested the order, alleging malicious intent and wrongful action in the prosecution's handling of certain documents indicating income from other sources. It was argued that the prosecution purposefully disregarded these documents to support an agenda and neglected to consider the Income Tax Returns filed before the case's registration. However, the court noted a lack of substantial evidence supporting these claims beyond the testimony of biased witnesses.

Regarding the Income Tax Returns, the court highlighted the absence of proof demonstrating that the assets generating the reported income were legally acquired. Consequently, as there was no evidence of wrongdoing or distortion in the trial process, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court.

Case Title: AM Paramasivan and another v State

Click here to Read/Download the judgement