Madras HC sets aside order convicting former AIADMK minister Janardhanan, says lower court had 'gone away from charges framed against him'

Chennai: The Madras Excessive Courtroom has put aside an order of a decrease courtroom in 2005, which sentenced former AIADMK minister Janardhanan to 2 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) in a disproportionate wealth case.

On 15 April, 2005, the Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace in Cuddalore had discovered former AIADMK minister Janardhanan responsible and sentenced him to 2 years RI and imposed a superb of Rs 50,000.

Justice MV Muralidharan additionally put aside the decrease courtroom’s order, confiscating the properties of the previous minister’s spouse. The choose was permitting the legal appeals from the couple, difficult the 2005 order of the trial courtroom.

The Madras Excessive Courtroom. Wikki Commons

The choose noticed that the trial courtroom had gone past the costs framed towards Janardhanan and received influenced with the supplies furnished, together with the ultimate report. “The trial courtroom choose has gone away from the costs framed towards the ex-minister, which is impermissible in regulation,” he mentioned.

Justice Muralidharan mentioned the circumstances registered underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act shouldn’t fall into the doubtfulness. “As soon as it’s discovered by the courtroom that there are potentialities of falsehood in registering the case, then the complete case of the prosecution would collapse as the identical within the opinion of this courtroom is an important blow to the prosecution,” he mentioned and put aside the trial courtroom order.

The prosecution case was that Janardhanan had property disproportionate to his identified sources of earnings to the tune of Rs 56.13 lakh and thereby dedicated an offence underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, when he was a minister.

The choose mentioned the trial courtroom has not appreciated the totality of the case, when the costs framed towards the previous minister’s spouse weren’t proved.

“The trial courtroom order of her acquittal within the case has not been challenged. Therefore, it’s unreasonable to maintain the findings of the trial choose in respect of the confiscation,” he mentioned and put aside the order to confiscate her properties.

Source link

Facebook Comments