Tr. A.Babu vs. State Of Tamil Nadu

2025 INSC 799
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 14629 of 2024)

Tr. A. BABU …….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU ….RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
1
3. The appellant (A-4) and the co-accused
2
persons faced trial before the Ld. ASJ, Additional

1
Tr. A. Babu/Accused No. 4. (Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant (A-4)’.
2
The other accused namely are, Indirakumari/Accused No.1, wife of
appellant herein (A-4); T.K. Kirubakaran/Accused No.2, Secretary to the
Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Scheme (A-2); Dr. P.
Shanmugam/Accused No.3, Director of Rehabilitation of the Disabled (A-
3) and R. Venkatakrishnan/Accused No.5, junior P.A. to A-1 (A-5).
1


3
Special Court for the criminal cases relating to
elected MPs and MLAs, Chennai. They were charged
for criminal misconduct under the Prevention of
4
Corruption Act, 1988, criminal breach of trust and
misappropriation of grant-in-aid funds amounting to
Rs.15,45,000/-. These grants were made for running
schools for the welfare of ‘Severely Orthopedically
Handicapped Children’ and ‘Deaf’ children. A-2 died
during pendency of the trial and thus, the trial
th
against him stood abated. Vide judgment dated 29
September, 2001, the trial Court acquitted A-5 and
convicted appellant (A-4) and other co-accused
persons(A-1) and (A-3) and sentenced them as
below.:-

3
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘PC Act’.
2

3

4. The appellant and his wife Indirakumari (A-1)
preferred a joint Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2021
before the High Court to challenge their conviction
and sentences as awarded by the trial Court. During
the pendency of the appeal, Indirakumari (A-1)
passed away and thus, her appeal stood abated. The
appeal preferred by the appellant (A-4) has been
4


th
rejected by the High Court vide judgment dated 5
September, 2024, and hence, this appeal by special
leave.
th
5. On 14 February, 2025, Shri S. Nagamuthu,
learned senior counsel for the appellant, confined his
submissions to the question of sentence only and
urged that, while reducing the sentence, the fine
amount may be enhanced, which may be directed to
be utilised for the benefit of the specially-abled
children. Accordingly, limited notice was issued on
the aspect of sentence and the prayer for grant of bail.
Further, on the submissions/offer made by Shri S.
th
Nagamuthu on 14 February, 2025, as an interim
measure, an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was directed to
be deposited with the Registry of this Court. The
same has been complied with.
5


6. Today, the matter has been taken up for
consideration of the application for bail/suspension
of sentence filed on behalf of the appellant.
7. On a perusal of the record, it transpires that the
charges against the appellant (A-4) and the other co-
5
accused persons were of misappropriating the
funds, for their own benefits, which were meant to be
used for institutions for specially-abled children.
Indirakumari (A-1), being the wife of the appellant
herein (A-4) was the Minister for Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meals Scheme, who registered two trusts,
namely M/s. Mercy Mother India Charitable Trust
and M/s Bharani Swathi Educational Trust, wherein
the appellant (A-4) and the mother of Indirakumari
(A-1) were appointed as trustees. The appellant (A-4)
was appointed as a lifelong managing trustee vested
with all the powers and functions of the trusts. A

5
Supra Note 2.
6


sum of Rs. 15,45,000/- was sanctioned by way of
grant-in-aid to these trusts by the social welfare
department. On a complaint being filed, the matter
was investigated, and it came to light that the grant-
in-aid was sanctioned without conducting proper
audit and inspection. A huge sum of money was
bestowed by way of grant-in-aid to schools for
handicapped children which were not even in
existence.
8. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel,
tried to urge that the appellant was implicated in this
case only on the ground of him being a managing
trustee of the above-mentioned two trusts and that
he had no active role to play in the alleged criminal
misconduct and/or misappropriation. However, he
was not in a position to dispute that the grant-in-aid
to the tune of Rs. 15,45,000/- was extended without
entitlement, audit or inspection and that several of
7


the beneficiary schools purportedly established by
the respective trusts were not even in existence.
9. We find that so far as the findings of the trial
Court and the appellate Court regarding the charges
of criminal misconduct and criminal breach of trust
and misappropriation attributed to Indirakumari (A-
1) are concerned, the same have attained finality
because the appeal against conviction filed on behalf
of the said accused has abated.
10. Shri S. Nagamuthu has not challenged the
conviction of the appellant (A-4). His submission was
that the appellant (A-4), who is now about 68 years
old, is repenting and in order to show his bona fides ,
he is ready to pay an enhanced amount of fine which
may be used for restoration/rehabilitation of children
in need of care and protection/children in conflict
with law as per the mandate of the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015.
8


11. Shri S. Nagamuthu submitted on instructions
that the appellant (A-4) is ready to unconditionally
deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores, including the amount
of Rs. 50 lakhs already deposited for this purpose.
However, his fervent plea was that the appellant (A-
4) may be released on bail during the pendency of the
appeal.
12. Learned counsel representing the State opposed
the submissions advanced by the appellant’s
counsel.
13. Having heard and considered the submissions
raised at Bar and after going through the material
available on record, while affirming the findings of
guilt recorded by the Courts below qua the appellant,
we deem it fit to entertain this appeal limited to the
extent of quantum of sentence only.
14. The appellant is about 68 years of age as on
date. The incident took place between the years
9


1990-1996 and the trial was drawn out over more
than two decades. In the facts and circumstances
noted above and considering the fact that the
appellant by way of repentance has volunteered to
deposit an enhanced fine of Rs. 5 crores, we hereby
direct that the appellant shall be released on bail
subject to such terms and conditions as may be
imposed by the trial Court.
15. Shri S. Nagamuthu prays that the accused
appellant may be granted three months’ time to
deposit the balance amount of Rs. 4 crores and 50
lakhs. Thus, it is directed that the appellant shall
immediately and not later than two weeks from today,
file an undertaking in this Court that he shall deposit
the balance amount of Rs. 4 crores and 50 lakhs with
th
the Registry of this Court on or before 18 June,
2025.
10


16. In case the appellant (A-4) fails to furnish the
undertaking and deposit the amount in the above
terms, the bail granted to him shall stand cancelled
automatically and he shall be taken back into
custody to serve the remaining sentence. However, if
the compliance is made, the entire amount of Rs. 5
crores including the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs deposited
earlier shall be transmitted to the account of the
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to be
invested in an interest-bearing fixed deposit account
in a Nationalised bank.
17. The Juvenile Justice Committee of the High
Court of Tamil Nadu shall, in its own wisdom, be
authorised to utilise the interest generated from this
amount for the benefit of the Government
established/operated childcare institutions in the
State of Tamil Nadu.

11


th
18. List on 14 July, 2025 for reporting compliance.


….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


...…………………….J.
SS (SANDEEP
MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
March 18, 2025.


12