Split Bench Holds Differing Views on Spouse's Liability in Disproportionate Assets Case; Attachment Orders Upheld

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard appeals arising out of a Madras High Court judgment dated 20.11.2023 that upheld convictions under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and an attachment order under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. The appeals challenged (i) the conviction and one‑year sentence imposed on the accused-wife for abetment under Section 109 IPC read with the PC Act, (ii) modification of the attachment order, and (iii) the administrative order directing a fresh hearing of a purportedly pronounced 2013 High Court judgment.

The Court delivered differing judgments on criminal liability of the wife. Justice Amanullah allowed the criminal appeal concerning conviction (SLP (Crl.) No.2127/2024), held that mere name‑lending and transactions in a spouse’s name did not, without more, establish abetment, and set aside the conviction; he emphasised the necessity of cogent evidence to displace the presumption of innocence. Justice Dhulia disagreed on culpability and would have dismissed that appeal, upholding the Trial Court and High Court findings that repeated purchases, registration of properties and conduct during the check period established 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.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The two‑judge court was unanimous in dismissing the appeals against the attachment order and the administrative order restoring the matter for fresh hearing; the registry was directed to place the papers of SLP (Crl.) No.2127/2024 before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Background The prosecution alleged that A.M. Paramasivam, an MLA and Minister between 1991–1996, amassed disproportionate assets during his tenure and that substantial properties were acquired in the names of his wife, P. Nallammal (the present appellant), and their minor children. The Trial Court convicted the husband under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)/(e) of the PC Act and convicted the wife under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c)/(e), sentencing them to two years and one year RI respectively; an attachment order dated 03.01.2001 sought forfeiture of assets quantified then at Rs.35,25,136/‑. The accused appealed to the Madras High Court; after a contested rehearing (following an administrative direction that no certified 2013 judgment existed on record), the High Court on 20.11.2023 upheld convictions and confirmed attachment, while reducing the quantified disproportion to Rs.33,25,136/‑.

On appeal to this Court the defence urged that many properties were gifted or acquired before the check period, that the wife had independent agricultural income and stridhana, and that the prosecution failed to prove mens rea or any conspiracy/intentional aid. The State relied on documentary and oral evidence of multiple transactions in the check period and emphasised the statutory shift of burden in Section 13(1)(e) cases. Justice Amanullah, applying the principle that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence,” held that the prosecution had not established the ingredients of abetment against the wife and acquitted her. Justice Dhulia, dissenting on that point, found repeated transactions and registration activity in the wife’s name sufficient to infer active assistance and upheld her conviction and the direction for surrender contained in his order. Both judges, however, concurred in dismissing the appeals against the attachment order and the challenges to the administrative listing; the registry was directed to place the identified papers before the Chief Justice for further disposition of the conflicted appeal.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2489 OF 2025 (SLP (Crl.) NO.2127 OF 2024); CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2490 OF 2025 (SLP (Crl.) NO.2288 OF 2024); CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2491-2492 OF 2025 (SLP (Crl.) NOS.5196-5197 OF 2024) Case Title: P. Nallammal v. State by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti‑Corruption Police, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu (and connected matters) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment extract For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment extract