How old debt defaults came to haunt an ex-Minister in a corruption case many years later

In the contiguous day, a little CIBIL people tin ruin your indebtedness application. In the pre-database era, indebtedness defaults would not amusement up against your sanction connected the machine screen. Yet, specified atrocious debt-clearing past had the imaginable to haunt the defaulter galore years aboriginal arsenic this lawsuit establishes.

In 1973, K. Ponnusamy was moving arsenic a Lecturer astatine a Government Arts College successful Tamil Nadu. He availed of a ₹13,000 harvest indebtedness from the Bank of India but failed to repay the loan. The slope moved the tribunal and collected the amount.

Madras HC orders merchandise of erstwhile Minister K. Ponnusamy’s seized properties

Subsequently, successful 1985, helium borrowed ₹5,000 from a workfellow R. Palanivelu, aft executing a promissory note. He defaulted connected this indebtedness too. The lender had to record a suit connected which a decree was passed. Even then, the wealth was not repaid. Eventually, the decree magnitude was recovered from his salary.

In aboriginal years Mr. Ponnusamy’s idiosyncratic fortunes were connected the upswing. He had go a acquainted property successful Tamil Nadu successful 1991, erstwhile helium was elected to the Assembly from the Marungapuri constituency connected an AIADMK ticket. Riding connected a sympathy question triggered by erstwhile Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, J. Jayalalitha (as her sanction was spelt then) became the youngest Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. She appointed Mr. Ponnusamy Deputy Speaker of the Assembly connected July 3. Two years later, connected May 17, she inducted him into her Cabinet and allotted the Education portfolio. He held the station till May 9, 1996, erstwhile the AIADMK was thrown retired of powerfulness pursuing a beardown anti-corruption wave.

The caller M. Karunanidhi authorities registered corruption cases against Jayalalithaa, her confidante Sasikala Natarajan (now V. K. Sasikala), erstwhile Ministers and others. It besides established 3 Special Courts successful Chennai to prosecute the accused.

That is erstwhile Mr. Ponnusamy’s troubles began. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered a lawsuit against him, his woman Prabavathy, girl Mala, nephew Venkatesan, member K. Rajappa and an auditor V. Jayaraman. The bureau accused Mr. Ponnusamy of amassing wealthiness to the tune of ₹77.49 lakh during his tenure arsenic Minister, disproportionate to his known sources of income. The movable and immovable assets were acquired successful the names of his woman and daughter. Ms. Prabavathy was a housewife earning a tiny cultivation income. His girl was lone a student.

The erstwhile Minister contended that helium had derived income from properties.

During the proceedings successful the Special Court II, the prosecution wanted to found that Mr. Ponnusamy was not financially good disconnected till specified clip helium became the Education Minister. For this, the prosecution dug up his past and produced grounds of him having defaulted connected the harvest indebtedness and idiosyncratic borrowing. His workfellow Mr. Palanivelu appeared successful tribunal arsenic a prosecution witnesser and fto successful grounds astir the conflict helium faced successful recovering ₹5,000 from the erstwhile Minister.

This proved to beryllium a turning constituent successful the lawsuit and yet led to Mr. Ponnusamy’s condemnation successful August 2000, much than a 4th of a period aft helium archetypal defaulted successful repaying a loan.

The justice V. Radhakrishnan noted successful his verdict: “Till helium became the Education Minister, Mr. Ponnusamy’s fiscal presumption was not sound. It appears that helium had to get wealth to marque some [sic] ends meet, and helium could not repay the loans and execution proceedings had to beryllium initiated against him for betterment of loans by the creditors. Even arsenic a Deputy Speaker and MLA, helium was not successful a presumption to discharge the debts. So the communicative that helium had a batch of income from landed properties cannot beryllium accepted.”

The erstwhile Minister had besides taken the defence that the properties were acquired done funds fixed “out of emotion and affection” by Mr. Venkatesan to his sister and niece (i.e. Ms Prabavathy and Ms Mala).

However, the justice rejected this mentation saying it was unbelievable. The tribunal pointed retired Mr. Ponnusamy had not offered immoderate acceptable mentation successful respect of the assets lasting successful the names of his wife, daughter, his member and Mr. Venkatesan. The behaviour of the 4 accused and the circumstances “unerringly and intelligibly indicated” that lone by utilising the funds of Mr. Ponnusamy, “which could not beryllium accounted for”, pecuniary resources successful the their names were acquired. “These accused were lone sanction lenders oregon benamidars,” it held.

The justice past sentenced the erstwhile Minister to acquisition 3 twelvemonth rigorous imprisonment (RI) and wage a good of ₹1 lakh. While acquitting the auditor for privation of evidence, the tribunal awarded 1 twelvemonth RI and imposed a good of ₹10,000 connected each of the different 4 accused, who were recovered guilty.

All 5 of them appealed successful the Madras High Court challenging their conviction. In April 2001, the High Court upheld Mr. Ponnusamy’s condemnation alone, portion acquitting his household members. The tribunal said determination was nary impervious they had intentionally aided Mr. Ponnusamy successful committing the offence. Also, determination was thing to found that his woman and girl knew that ill-got wealth was being utilized for purchasing spot successful their names.

Mr. Ponnusamy past moved the Supreme Court seeking relief. A Bench of Justices S. N. Vairava and K. T. Thomas dismissed his petition successful July 2001 holding: “Both the proceedings tribunal and the High Court were close successful convicting the appellant.”

Thus, Mr. Ponnusamy became the archetypal erstwhile Minister from Tamil Nadu to beryllium convicted by the highest tribunal of the state successful a corruption lawsuit and service his sentence.

Postscript: The lawsuit was not implicit yet. It took a funny crook successful March 2019. Passing orders connected an entreaty from Mr. Prabavavathy and Ms. Mala, the Madras High Court directed the State authorities to release properties worthy ₹77.49 lakh and 1,000 grams of golden ornaments seized from them since they stood acquitted successful the case. What’s much absorbing was that the bid was passed though the 2 women remained unrepresented successful the entreaty either successful idiosyncratic oregon done their counsel.