The Madras High Court on Thursday sentenced Tamil Nadu state’s larger training minister Ok Ponmudy to three years of straightforward imprisonment in a ₹1.75-crore disproportionate property case, ANI reported.

The courtroom additionally imposed a tremendous of ₹50 lakhs every on Ponmudy and his spouse.

On Tuesday, the Madras High Court convicted Ponmudy and his spouse within the case, setting apart a trial courtroom’s order which acquitted them.

The case pertains to Ponmudy (72) amassing wealth disproportionately to the tune of ₹1.75 crore in his title and within the title of his spouse which was 65.99% greater than his identified sources of revenue when he was a minister within the DMK-led regime throughout 2006 to 2011.

They have been, nonetheless, acquitted by a trial courtroom in Villupuram in 2016. On Tuesday, the excessive courtroom put aside that verdict and famous that the cost of offence punishable below the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stands proved in opposition to each accused.

“A complete miscarriage of justice had occurred by the omission of reliable evidence and by mis-interpretation of the evidence,” Justice Jayachandran famous. “…the overwhelming evidence against the respondents and the unsustainable reasons given by the trial court for acquittal by ignoring those evidence compel this court to declare the judgment of the trial court is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable. Hence, this is a fit case for the appellate court to interfere and set it aside.”

The choose additionally held the trial courtroom incorrect to think about the accused couple as separate entities as an alternative of clubbing them collectively.

“The trial court has failed to understand that, the substance of charge against A-2 is that, she being the wife of A-1 (public servant) holding the assets of A-1 which he had acquired through unknown source,” the courtroom held. “Whether, the lack of capital/source to yield income proportionate to the properties acquired in the name of A-2 during the check period is the point which ought to have been first examined by the trial court…”