The Madras High Court has refused to spare P. Nallammal, wife of late Labour Minister A.M. Paramasivam, from the ordeal of incarceration in a 26-year-old corruption case, and ordered that the 80-year-old widow must undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment for having aided her late husband in amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Justice G. Jayachandran directed the trial court to secure the octogenarian and commit her to prison to undergo the sentence. The verdict was passed while disposing of the oldest criminal appeal pending in the High Court in the last 23 years. The first appellant died on May 23, 2015 and hence Nallammal alone pursued the appeal against the trial court verdict against them.
Paramasivam served as an AIADMK MLA between 1991 and 1996, and was the Labour Minister in J. Jayalalithaa’s cabinet between 1993 and 1996. After the DMK returned to power, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) filed a chargesheet against him and his wife in 1997 for having amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of ₹38.72 lakh.
A sessions court in Chennai convicted the couple on November 15, 2000. While Paramasivam was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, his wife was ordered to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment. The High Court suspended their sentence in December 2000, but their appeal had remained pending since then. After 15 years, Paramasivam died, leaving behind his wife.
Taking up the appeal for final hearing, Justice Jayachandran heard the matter at length on merits and confirmed the conviction as well as the punishment imposed on the octogenarian. He said the prosecution had proved the charge against the former Minister of having acquired wealth above 400% to his known sources of income, and his wife having lent her name to purchase properties through undeclared sources.
Though the octogenarian’s counsel pleaded with the court to spare the widow of imprisonment at a ripe age, the judge said it could not be done since the minimum punishment for the offence itself was one year of rigorous imprisonment. “There cannot be further reduction,” he said, and also ordered forfeiture of the appellant’s properties for recovering ₹33.25 lakh, with interest of 6% from 1997.
