Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a remarkable and unparalleled development, the Madras High Court passed an order on Thursday expressing concerns about the procedural aspects of the verdict delivered by District Judge Vellore resulting in acquittal of Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudy and his wife in a case of 2002 involving alleged disproportionate assets.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh in a suo motu criminal revision case held that the transfer of the Higher Education Minister's case from the District Judge in Villupuram to the District Judge in Vellore was "ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eye of law". The case transfer order was passed by two judges of the High Court, on the administrative side.

Court noted that substantial proceedings in the case were conducted by the Principal District Court, Villupuram and at the fag end, the case came to be transferred to the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore.

"There was something seriously amiss about the procedure adopted in transferring the case," court pointed out while laying out the reason as to why it had to invoke Section 397 CrPC which allows any high court or sessions court judge to call for and examine records of a criminal court below for the purpose of satisfying itself about the legality and correctness of the court below's order. 

"There is no authority either under the Constitution, the Letters Patent or any provision of law authorizing two judges to exercise powers, on the administrative side, to transfer a pending criminal case from one District to another and that too by way of a note," held the single judge bench.

Regarding initiation of a suo motu case, court said, "The High Court cannot abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice by interfering where interference is imperative".

Therefore, court issued notice to the state and the Minister along with other accused persons in the concerned case and directed the registry to place a copy of the present order before the chief justice. 

K Ponmudi was the Minister of Transport and a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 13.05.1996 and 30.09.2001. During the said period, the Minister is alleged to have acquired and come into possession of properties and other pecuniary resources in his name and the names of his wife and sons, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

An FIR was registered in 2002 registered by the Cuddalore Village, Anti-Corruption Department 2 under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Ponmudi, his wife Visalakshi, his mother-in-law P.Saraswathi, A. Manivannan and A. Nandagopal who are friends of Ponmudi.

In 2004, a Chief Judicial Magistrate in Villupuram decided to release the defendants from the case, and this decision was upheld by the High Court in 2006. However, when the State appealed the ruling, the Supreme Court took a different stance, overturning the discharge orders and ordering trial to proceed.

The Villupuram Principal District Court was designated as the special court for hearing cases against MPs and MLAs in 2019. On April 26, 2022, the Principal District Judge wrote a letter to the High Court seeking permission for conducting special sittings on four holidays in the month of May 2022 to conduct the trial in the matter since the Supreme Court had insisted upon expeditious disposal.

On June 7, 2022, not only the permission was refused by the high court on its administrative side but also shockingly the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, was injuncted from exercising her judicial powers over the case until further orders.

Thereafter, on July 6 and July 7, 2022, two high court judges, holding the portfolio of Villupuram district, wrote to the then Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari to transfer the disproportionate assets case from Villupuram to Vellore and the same was approved on July 8, 2022.

Subsequently, the Vellore Principal District Judge, on June 28, 2023, acquitted all the accused persons and got retired from service on June 30, 2023.

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State and Others