The Madras High Court has set aside the 2016 order discharging Tamil Nadu Minister MRK Paneerselvam and his family members in two disproportionate asset cases. Justice P. Velmurugan passed the verdict while hearing the criminal revision petitions filed by the State against the trial court's discharge order.
The case, originally registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department in 2011, alleged that MRK Paneerselvam, during his tenure as Minister and Member of Legislative Assembly between 1996–2001 and 2006–2011, had acquired assets vastly exceeding his known sources of income. His wife and son, who were also accused, were alleged to have abetted in the accumulation of these properties.
“The Special Court discharged the accused without properly evaluating the prima facie materials presented by the prosecution,” said Justice Velmurugan. He further noted that the trial court had “traversed beyond the scope of Section 239 CrPC,” which only allows consideration of whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed to trial—not for a detailed evaluation of evidence.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the judge emphasized,
“At the stage of framing charges, even strong suspicion based on material collected by the prosecution is sufficient to proceed.”
The Court held that the trial judge had conducted a "mini trial," which was impermissible at the discharge stage. The findings were described as perverse, and the court emphasized that the accused should have explained the source of their wealth when given the opportunity during the investigation.
The defence had argued that the assets in question belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family or were acquired from independent sources. However, the Court rejected this claim, stating
If the assets truly came from independent sources or family wealth, it should have been explained when the prosecution issued notices.”
The trial court’s reliance on income tax returns filed by the accused was also criticized. The High Court made it clear that mere filing of returns cannot be taken as proof of lawful income in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“Just because the income tax department accepted the returns doesn’t make the source of assets legitimate,” the Court observed, citing multiple Supreme Court precedents.
Regarding the investigation, the defence questioned the authority of the police officer who conducted it. However, the Court clarified that the officer was duly authorised under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court concluded that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges and proceed with the trial.
