Madras High Court Rejects Delay in Criminal Revision Petition Against Ex-DMK Minister
The Madras High Court denied a request on Thursday, June 25, 2026, to excuse a delay of 839 days in filing a criminal revision petition related to the acquittal of former DMK Minister P. Geetha Jeevan and her family in a 2002 disproportionate assets case involving ₹2.31 crore.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the petition filed by advocate S. Shanmugasundaram from Thoothukudi, stating there were no valid grounds to hear the plea. He emphasized that third parties are not permitted to challenge acquittal orders in such cases.
Background of the Case
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) first registered the case in 2012 against Ms. Jeevan’s father, N. Periasamy, for allegedly accumulating wealth beyond his known sources of income from 1996 to 2001, during his tenure as the MLA from Thoothukudi.
Other family members were implicated as co-accused due to the alleged use of the illicit funds for property purchases in their names. However, the trial court acquitted all accused on December 14, 2022, citing insufficient evidence from the prosecution.
Petitioner’s Claims and Court’s Response
The petitioner argued he waited until February 23, 2024, for DVAC to appeal the acquittal, and subsequently filed a request for certified documents from the Thoothukudi Principal District and Sessions Court. After the court denied this request, he approached the High Court twice, eventually obtaining the necessary documents on July 22, 2024.
Despite this, Justice Ilanthiraiyan noted the petitioner had not justified the delay in filing the revision petition before the Madurai Bench of the High Court, which he only did on March 19, 2025. “No valid reasons were provided as to why the findings of the trial court were claimed to be erroneous,” he remarked.
“This court shall entertain the revision order against the order of acquittal only on exceptional cases,” Justice Ilanthiraiyan clarified.
The judge further stated that the legal system should not be exploited for personal or political vendettas by third parties. He concluded that third parties do not possess legal grounds to pursue criminal revision petitions against trial court acquittals, reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process.
