One-year RI for Muthiah's daughter

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, APRIL 28. Ms. Malarvizhi, daughter of the former Assembly Speaker, Mr. R. Muthiah, was today convicted and sentenced by a Special Court to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 in the disproportionate wealth case against her father.

In his 62-page verdict, the Special Judge-I, Mr. A. C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, said the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused had aided her father by allowing him to transfer various properties in her name.

The Judge suspended the operation of the substantial portion of the verdict till May 22 to enable the accused to file appeal. She paid the fine.

It may be recalled that during the stage of questioning of the accused under Cr.P.C. section 313, the then Special Judge, Mr. S. Sambandham, had split the case against Ms. Malarvizhi, one of the accused, since she was not well. On March 8, Mr. Muthiah was sentenced to 25 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.

In his judgment, Mr. Adityan said public servants, who owed a responsibility to serve the public, became slaves to the evil of corruption and ``corruption monster, after engulfing the government servant, also spreads its tentacles on his kith and kin in the process of hiding the illgotten money'' resulting in young people like the accused to expose themselves for conviction and sentence in corruption cases in which they are not directly involved.

The former Speaker was convicted and ``because of his corrupt public life, his entire family is being put to shame and roped into this criminal case.''

Following the pleading by the accused to show mercy on her since she had a five-month-old child, the Judge said he was sentencing her to one year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 25,000 fine.

Ms. Malarvizhi was charged under IPC section 109 (abetment) read with 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of PCA.

The Judge said admittedly, Ms. Malarvizhi was a student during the check period, from July 3, 1991 to October 31, 1994, and hence she had no source of personal income to purchase any land or to construct building in her name. He referred to the written statement of the accused during questioning by the court that the house at Tirumangalam in 7.62 acres and Malaiyagoundanpatti in her name were constructed from the joint family income.

As far as she was concerned, apart from two defence witnesses, no witness was examined by the accused to show that only from out of the joint family income Rs. 24.50 lakhs was raised to construct the flats at Tirumangalam. The property tax had been assessed in the names of the accused and the names of her brothers. The house tax and water tax had been levied only in the names of the accused and her mother and two brothers. That she had sufficient income to purchase lands had not been proved by her. A prosecution witness had deposed that the income of the accused through gifts and loans was only Rs. 2.69 lakhs.

There was no iota of evidence on the defence side to prove that the properties, worth several lakhs, were purchased from legal sources of her income.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Regional
Previous : Opposition parties walk out of Assembly
Next     : MLA quarters: Govt. rejects probe plea