VILLUPURAM: While acquitting former minister K Ponmudy and seven others in a red sand quarrying case in Villupuram on Thursday, Principal District Judge A Manimozhi observed that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the charges, citing hostile witnesses, unreliable documentation and lack of credible evidence.
In his judgment, the judge noted that the case was severely weakened by procedural lapses and coerced documentation, ultimately collapsing for want of substantiated evidence.
The case, investigated by the District Crime Branch (DCB), Villupuram, alleged that Ponmudy abused his office between 2007 and 2011 to facilitate illegal red sand quarrying in Poothurai village in Vanur taluk, causing an estimated loss of over
`28 crore to the state exchequer. His son, P Gowthamasigamani, along with relatives S Rajamahendiran and V Jayachandiran, and associates K Sadanandam, K Kumar and M Gopinathan, were also named as accused.
The accused were booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and Rule 36A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
The chargesheet was filed in 2013, and the trial spanned 13 years, during which 57 witnesses were examined. Final arguments were concluded on March 2 this year.
The court found that the prosecution’s case collapsed primarily due to the failure of the district administration to substantiate its evidence. More than 40 government officials, including tahsildars, village administrative officers, revenue inspectors and mines department staff, turned hostile, the judge noted.
Several witnesses deposed that their signatures on observation mahazars, joint inspection reports and house-search documents were obtained under duress at the DCB office without any site visits. The court observed that many such reports were either fabricated or unreliable.
According to the judgment, Deputy Directors of the Geology and Mines Department, Sundaram and Kanthan, admitted that the joint inspection reports were not based on actual field inspections. Sundaram further stated that he had been forced to sign antedated reports.
The complainant, then Vanur tahsildar, told the court that he had signed a pre-typed complaint without knowing its contents, while the then revenue divisional officer stated that he had been compelled to sign documents prepared by the district collector’s office. In all, 33 of the 57 witnesses turned hostile.
Searches conducted at the residences of the accused yielded no incriminating material, weakening the prosecution’s claim of a larger conspiracy. In view of these findings, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges, leading to the acquittal of all the accused.