2025 (5) TMI 1005 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of conviction and sentence under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ( 1988 Act ) - conviction for abetment - illegal demanded and received for money for handing over a cheque relating to a motor accident claim - co-accused (husband of the appellant at the time) was also convicted and sentenced - incriminating documents relating to movable and immovable property in the name of the appellant and her husband found in search - appellant s husband serving as a public servant on the post of Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - HELD THAT - 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. If we apply the principles laid down in the P. Nallammal case 1999 (8) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT 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 co-accused 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 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. Hence we are of the opinion that the finding of both the courts below does not require any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant who is on bail is directed to surrender within four weeks from today. Interim order(s) if any stand(s) disposed of. Pending application(s) if any stand(s) disposed of.

Summary

The core legal question considered by the Court is whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter '1988 Act'), read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Specifically, the Court examined whether a non-public servant, in this case the appellant, could be held liable for abetting her husband, a public servant, in acquiring disproportionate assets during the check period.

Additional relevant issues include the interpretation of the concept of abetment under sections 107 and 108 of the IPC, the applicability of abetment provisions under the 1988 Act prior to and after its 2018 amendment, and the evidentiary basis for concluding that the appellant abetted the offence despite the assets being held in her name and the appellant's subsequent marital status.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment under section 109 IPC read with sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act

Legal framework and precedents: The Court analyzed the definitions of abetment under sections 107 and 108 IPC. Section 107 defines abetment as instigating, engaging in conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission of an offence. Section 108 elaborates on the liability of an abettor, including situations where the offence may not be committed or where the person abetted is incapable of committing the offence. The Court relied heavily on the precedent set in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State, where it was held that offences under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The Court in that case provided illustrations showing how relatives or associates of public servants could abet corruption offences by instigation, conspiracy, or aiding, even if they themselves are not public servants.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, which deals with possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant, is abettable by any person, including non-public servants. The Court noted that the 2018 amendment to the 1988 Act further clarified that all offences under the Act are punishable for abetment, but even prior to this amendment, abetment was recognized under IPC provisions. The Court found that the appellant's conduct fell within the scope of abetment as defined in section 107 IPC, particularly under the second and third illustrations in P. Nallammal, where a person conspires with a public servant or keeps ill-gotten wealth in their name.

Key evidence and findings: It was an admitted fact that the appellant's husband, a public servant, acquired movable and immovable properties disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period. These assets were found in the appellant's name as well as her husband's. The Trial Court and the High Court concurrently found the appellant guilty of abetting the offence by allowing the assets to be held in her name, thus facilitating concealment of disproportionate wealth. The appellant's argument that the properties held in her name cannot be deemed disproportionate in her hands was rejected on the basis that the assets were acquired through corrupt means by her husband and she knowingly abetted this.

Application of law to facts: Applying the principles from P. Nallammal, the Court held that the appellant's active involvement in concealing disproportionate assets by keeping them in her name constituted intentional aid or conspiracy in abetment of the offence under section 13(1)(e). The appellant's status as a public servant herself reinforced the conclusion that she was aware of the illegality. The subsequent dissolution of the marital relationship and the co-accused's remarriage were held irrelevant since the offence and abetment occurred during the subsistence of the marriage and the check period.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant contended that she should not be held liable for abetment merely because the assets were registered in her name and that she was prosecuted only as the wife of the main accused. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that abetment liability arises from active participation or facilitation, not mere ownership of property. The appellant's role in allowing the accumulation of disproportionate assets in her name was sufficient to establish abetment. The argument regarding her changed marital status was dismissed as immaterial to the commission of the offence.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellant was rightly convicted under section 109 IPC read with sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act for abetting her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court were affirmed.

2. Interpretation of abetment under IPC and its application to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Legal framework and precedents: Sections 107 and 108 IPC provide the foundational legal definitions of abetment and abettor. The Court referred extensively to these provisions to clarify that abetment includes instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid, and that abetment can be established even if the principal offence is not ultimately committed. The Court also relied on the P. Nallammal judgment, which clarified that non-public servants can be convicted for abetting offences under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, despite the absence of express provision for abetment in the Act prior to the 2018 amendment.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted the IPC abetment provisions as fully applicable to offences under the 1988 Act. It rejected the contention that abetment of section 13(1)(e) offences by non-public servants was not punishable. The illustrations from P. Nallammal were cited to demonstrate various scenarios where relatives or associates of public servants could be liable for abetment.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's involvement in the concealment of disproportionate assets was found to satisfy the criteria of intentional aid or conspiracy under section 107 IPC. The evidence of assets held in her name and her role in facilitating their acquisition was sufficient to establish abetment.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the abetment principles to the facts, concluding that the appellant's conduct met the threshold for abetment liability. The Court underscored that abetment does not require the abettor to be a public servant or to have committed the principal offence themselves.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument that abetment was not punishable under the 1988 Act for non-public servants was rejected based on the combined reading of IPC and the 1988 Act, as well as judicial precedent.

Conclusions: The Court reaffirmed that abetment under IPC applies to offences under the 1988 Act, including section 13(1)(e), and that non-public servants can be convicted for abetment.

3. Relevance of marital status and ownership of assets for determining liability

Legal framework and precedents: The Court noted that ownership of assets in the name of a spouse or relative does not absolve the person from liability if it is proven that the assets were acquired through corrupt means and the person knowingly abetted the acquisition or concealment. The Court also clarified that the status of the appellant as the wife at the time of the offence is relevant, but even if she were not the wife, her active role in facilitating the acquisition of disproportionate assets suffices for conviction.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the appellant's argument about changed marital status post-offence was irrelevant because the offence and abetment took place during the marriage. Moreover, the appellant's active participation in holding assets in her name was sufficient to establish abetment irrespective of marital status.

Key evidence and findings: Evidence showed that disproportionate assets were held in the appellant's name during the check period, and there was no credible explanation for their acquisition from known sources of income.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that possession and concealment of disproportionate assets by a spouse can constitute abetment if done knowingly and intentionally to facilitate the offence.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's contention that the assets in her name could not be considered disproportionate was rejected, as the disproportionate nature of the assets was established and the concealment in her name was held to be an act of abetment.

Conclusions: The Court held that the appellant's marital status change after the offence and the ownership of assets in her name do not absolve her of abetment liability.

Significant Holdings

"An offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be abetted by any other person, including non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the PC Act."

"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."

"The appellant's active involvement in concealing disproportionate assets by keeping them in her name constitutes intentional aid or conspiracy in abetment of the offence under section 13(1)(e)."

"The argument that the appellant is no longer the wife of the co-accused 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 co-accused 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 Prevention of Corruption Act."

The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for abetment of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.