Assets exceed legal income by 124%, jail term of officer, wife for corruption upheld

The Madras High Court has confirmed the jail terms handed out to a public servant and his wife in a 2008 corruption case, noting their illegal assets outstripped their legal income by 124 per cent.

The man, who served as a public servant between 1990 and 2001, allegedly acquired assets both in his name and in the name of his wife. The illegal assets were pegged at Rs 53.30 lakh, the bench was informed.

Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan held, “Assets acquired by the accused were disproportionate to their known sources of income to the extent of 123.99%… The first accused, being a public servant, and the second accused, being his wife residing with him, had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.”

The court held that once the prosecution established a prima facie case, it was for the accused to explain the source of their assets. “The accused failed to discharge the said burden. The evidence also establishes that they were jointly in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the accused, and this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court,” the court held on July 3.

Conviction, wife’s role

R Murali, who worked as an assistant in the office of the assistant elementary educational officer in Konavattam, Vellore, and his wife M Valarmathi were held guilty under relevant provisions dealing with offences against public servants and abetment of a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), respectively. The woman worked in real estate.

While Murali, who died during the pendency of the case, was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 2,500, Valarmathi was given a four-year jail term and fined the same amount.

“Although she was not a public servant, she had an independent source of income to purchase the properties. She was also an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and an income-tax assessee. Therefore, the second appellant had sufficient independent income to acquire the immovable properties in her name,” argued their counsel K Nirmal Kumar.

Story continues below this ad

Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan confirmed the punishments of a public official and his wife in a 2008 corruption case, noting their illegal assets outstripped their legal income by 124%. (Image enhanced using AI)

Kumar contested the claims of the Tamil Nadu government counsel R Ganesh Kumar, saying that after the FIR was registered, Valarmathi furnished a detailed explanation and documents showing her source of income for purchasing the immovable properties.

“The allegations were primarily against the first accused. Since the first accused had died and the proceedings against him had abated, no useful purpose would be served by punishing the second accused,” added the defence lawyer.

State’s contention

The state’s counsel stated that the FIR was registered in 2003 and, therefore, there was no violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act provisions. Though the woman claimed to be a real estate broker and an LIC agent, the counsel argued that she failed to produce any evidence regarding the same.

“In fact, the second accused had taken a specific defence before the trial court that she had no connection with the first accused and that she had obtained a divorce from him. However, she failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the said defence,” added the government lawyer.

Story continues below this ad

The court noted that between 1990 and 1991, Murali was drawing Rs 1,100 as a monthly sum. “During the period from 1994 to 1997, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs 2,000. In 1998, he was paid Rs 2,700 per month, and in 1999, his monthly salary was Rs 3,300. Therefore, the assets acquired by the accused were disproportionate to their known sources of income to the extent of 123.99%,” the ruling stated.

The court held that during the check period, the man had no known source of income other than his salary. His wife too, the order said, was not employed elsewhere. “They failed to establish any independent source of income for acquiring assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and also failed to satisfactorily account for the acquisition of such assets,” the judge said.

On the other hand, the evidence presented indicated that the man acquired assets in the name of his wife without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and, as a result, his employer initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.

The high court refused to interfere with the trial court verdict despite being informed that the woman was suffering from stage-4 cancer.