Madras HC refuses to interfere with ex-minister Geetha Jeevan’s acquittal in disproportionate assets case
The Madras High Court on Thursday (June 25, 2026) refused to condone an 839-day delay in preferring a third-party criminal review petition against the acquittal of former DMK minister P. Geetha Jeevan and her family members in the 2002 ₹2.31 crore disproportionate assets case
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the application for condonation of stay filed by Thoothukudi-based advocate S. Shanmugasundaram after finding no reason to entertain the plea. He also emphasized that a third party to the proceedings cannot be allowed to file an appeal against the acquittal decision.
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had primarily registered a case in 2012 against Ms. Jeevan’s father N. Periasamy for allegedly amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income between 1996 and 2001 when he was the Thoothukudi MLA.
Other family members were added as co-accused as the money was allegedly used to buy properties in their names. However, the trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused and acquitted them all on 14 December 2022.
The present petitioner claimed that he waited until 23 February 2024 for the DVAC to file an appeal against the acquittal order. As the investigating agency failed to do so, he applied to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi for attested copies of all relevant documents.
When the Sessions Court refused to provide these copies, he made two applications to the High Court and obtained orders directing the trial court to issue to him certified copies of all the necessary documents. All these proceedings, therefore, resulted in a delay of 839 days in filing the revision petition, he claimed.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan, however, pointed out that though the petitioner had obtained all the documents on 22 July 2024, he had not explained why the revision petition was filed along with the condonation of delay petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court only on 19 March 2025.
“Furthermore, the affidavit filed in support of the application for a stay does not state how the trial court’s findings are erroneous or whether there was any perverse evaluation of the evidence or failure to consider any evidence or whether there was any glaring error of procedure or any manifest error of law, and as a result, the court will entertain this order of acquittal only in such exceptional cases as above,” the judge wrote.
He also noted that criminal proceedings cannot be misused as a tool for revenge either for political reasons or otherwise by a third party in criminal proceedings. “Therefore, a third party in a criminal proceeding is not entitled as a matter of law to maintain a criminal review against the dismissal or acquittal recorded by the trial court,” he concluded.
Published – 26 Jun 2026 0:21 AM IST