New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to former Tamil Nadu AIADMK minister V. Sathyamoorthy and his wife V. Chandra, convicted to five and three years imprisonment in a corruption case.
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Ms. R. Banumathi passed this order after hearing senior counsel Siddharth Luthra and Anand Padmanabhan, pleading for bail taking note of their health condition.
In a brief order, the bench said, "the hearing of the appeal, naturally, is likely to take some time. We have considered the age of the accused appellants (72 and 62 years respectively); their present medical health condition and the ailments that they are suffering from. The assertion made in this regard is duly supported by sworn statements."
Taking into account all the above, the Bench directed that they be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court which may impose appropriate condition,
On June 6, the Madras High Court convicted former Commercial Taxes Minister 'Kadaladi' V. Sathyamoorthy of the AIADMK, and his wife V. Chandra, in a 21-year-old disproportionate assets case.
They were sentenced to five and two years of rigorous imprisonment respectively and a fine of Rs 5 lakh each was slapped on them. The High Court allowed a State appeal pending since 2001and reversed their acquittal by a trial court on August 8, 2000.
The couple was found guilty of having amassed wealth to the tune of Rs. 83.32 lakh between January 1, 1992, and May 13, 1996, as claimed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
Assailing this order, they contended that the High court has reversed an order of acquittal in the absence of any substantial or compelling reasons to do so. The impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this court about the approach of High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal.
They argued that an order of acquittal could be reversed only for 'good and sufficiently cogent reasons' or for 'strong reasons'. The appellants are aggrieved by the clubbing of their income and properties despite the huge evidence produced by the defence and also spoken about by prosecution witness about the income earned by them individually. The clubbing of the properties has resulted in great prejudice to their case.
There was no evidence on record to show that any money traveled from the husband to his wife, who had a farm from which income was received. The purchase of properties at regular intervals by the second appellant Chandra's name and in the name of minor son was enough to demonstrate the grave error committed by the prosecution in clubbing the assets both moveable and immoveable of the appellant with that of her husband.
While seeking to set aside the HC order, they pointed out that they were on bail throughout the pendency of the appeal in the High Court and hence they should be released on bail considering their old age and medical condition.
