Appeal
Appeal against the conviction sustained by Hon’ble High Court
2. The appellant before this Court, who was working as an Assistant Superintendent in the Chennai Port Trust assails the judgment and order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Madras (hereinafter ‘High Court’) which has sustained her conviction and sentence under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter ‘1988 Act’). The co-accused (husband of the appellant, at the time) was also convicted and sentenced by the same order under section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
Facts
FIR registered for illegally demanded cheque for motor accident claim and acquired disproportionate asset
3. In June 2009, an FIR was registered against the appellant’s husband alleging that he had illegally demanded and received Rs. 3000 for handing over a cheque relating to a motor accident claim. While investigating the FIR, certain raids were conducted at the appellant’s husband’s house and on 31.12.2009 another FIR under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act was registered against the appellant’s husband, while he was serving as a public servant on the post of Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. When the search was conducted on the residential premise of the appellant’s husband, various incriminating documents relating to movable and immovable property in the name of the appellant and her husband were found. Primarily, it was alleged that during the check period between 1.09.2002 and 16.06.2009, the appellant’s husband had acquired movable and immovable properties which were disproportionate to his income. The properties were in the appellant’s name, as well as of her husband.
Charge sheet filed
4. On 18.12.2010, a chargesheet was filed and the appellant was charged under section 109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, while her husband was charged under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, with details of the various movable and immovable assets acquired by them during the check period. It was alleged that disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 60,99,216 have been acquired by the accused.
Trial court convicted the appellant and her husband
5. After perusing the evidence on record, the Trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2013 found the appellant and her husband guilty and held that the appellant’s husband has acquired disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 37,98,752 during the check period beyond his known sources of income. The appellant was held guilty of abetting her husband in acquiring such disproportionate assets. The appellant’s husband was convicted under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act and sentenced to 2 years of R.I. Whereas the appellant was sentenced under section 109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act and sentenced to 1 year of R.I.
Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeals of both the appellant and her husband
6. Both the appellant and her husband preferred their criminal appeal against the above order of conviction and sentence. On 10.01.2018, the High Court dismissed the appeal and found no ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. While dismissing the appeal, the High Court observed that although there are minor discrepancies in the calculation of known sources of income of the accused, the disproportionality of assets is hugely excessive. Specifically the High Court observed that there is no material to show that the assets acquired during the check period, were acquired from their known source or sources of income, and even if the explanations provided by the accused is accepted it does not still remove the disproportionality. Now the appellant is before this Court.
Analysis
Whether appellant rightly convicted?
9. The only question that comes up for our consideration is whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
10. Section 107 of IPC defines and illustrates as to what is abetment. Section 107 of IPC reads as follows:
“ ……….. “
Analysis of previous judgment
11. The law was laid down by this Court with respect to offences under section 109 IPC read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police (1999) 6 SCC 559, where this court was considering whether the appellants therein are liable to be convicted of abetting crime under 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
An offence under section 13(1)(e) PC Act can be abetted by any other person who is a non public servant
12. In P. Nallamal (Supra), it was contended before this Court that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act cannot be abetted by a non-public servant. Further, that there is no provision in the 1988 Act which provides punishment for abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) whereas it provides punishment for abetment of some other offences under the 1988 Act. However, after discussing the history of Section 13 of the 1988 Act which was a substitute for some of the provisions of Chapter-IX of IPC which deals with offences by or relating to public servants, this Court held that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be abetted by any other person. After reading Section 107 of IPC and accepting suggestions of Counsel, this Court gave illustrations that how even a person who is not a public servant can abet the offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“24. Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.
The first illustration cited is this:
If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation.
Next illustration is this:
Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy.
The last illustration is this:
If a public servant tells A, a close friend of his, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A’s name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of abetment falling under the “Thirdly” clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.
25. Such illustrations are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the PC Act.” (Emphasis Provided)
Any person (non-public servant) encourages a public servant to take bribe and decides to raise money through bribes is guilty of offence of abetment
13. In other words, any person who persuades a public servant to take bribes, decides to raise money through bribes along with a public servant and prompts such public servant to keep the wealth with him/her or keeps the amassed wealth of a public servant in his/her own name is guilty of committing the offence of abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. We must also note that the 2018 Amendment to the 1988 Act has substituted Section 12 of 1988 Act and made all 11 offences under the 1988 Act abettable. This Section 12 of 1988 Act reads as follows:
“12. Punishment for abetment of offences.—Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
In any case, there is no doubt that offence under section 13(1)(e) was abettable even prior to the 2018 Amendment.
14. In the case at hand, it is an admitted position that the appellant’s husband has acquired assets (disproportionate to his income), during the check period, in appellant’s name. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings on this aspect, and it is not required for us to deal with that aspect in detail.
Nallammal case applied in the present case
15. If we apply the principles laid down in the P. Nallammal case (supra), the present appellant’s case would definitely fall either in the 2nd or 3rd illustration. It is not clear from the record whether the appellant and her husband entered into a prior conspiracy to amass a huge bulk of wealth through bribery, but there is no doubt that after such disproportionate wealth was amassed, the appellant has been actively involved in concealing such wealth by keeping assets in her name. By doing so, the appellant is undoubtedly guilty of offence of abetment falling under section109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. Moreover, we would like to note that even the appellant was a public servant at the time of commission of the offence, as she was holding the post of Assistant Superintendent in the Chennai Port Trust, though she has been prosecuted here in her capacity as the wife of the main accused. We would also like to note that the appellant’s argument that she is no longer the wife of co-accused as the co-accused has remarried, has no force because at the time of commission of offence, she was the wife of the co-accused. Even if we assume that she was not the wife at the time of commission of crime, then also it is immaterial since it is proven that she had allowed the coaccused to accumulate assets in her name and thus, assisted the co-accused in accumulation of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. It is a well settled law that even a non-public servant can be convicted under section 109 IPC read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. We, therefore, find no reason 13 to hold that the appellant could not have been convicted under section 109 IPC read with 13(2) and13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
Judgment relied on/ involved
P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police (1999) 6 SCC 559
Acts and Sections involved
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 109
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12 (as amended in 2018)
Party
P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai – Criminal Appeal No. 2581 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3472 of 2018) – 2025 INSC 674- May 13, 2025 – Hon’ble Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran.
