Summary
The appellant, wife of a public servant found to have acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period, was convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for abetting him, several of the assets standing in her name. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding on the authority of P. Nallammal that a person who keeps a public servant's disproportionate wealth in his or her own name abets the offence under Section 13(1)(e), and that it is immaterial that the appellant has since ceased to be the co-accused's wife.
Issues
- Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether the fact that the co-accused is no longer the appellant's husband and has remarried affects her liability for abetment.
Provisions considered
- Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860Abetment is constituted by instigation, by engaging in a conspiracy pursuant to which an act is done, or by intentionally aiding the doing of a thing. Applying the illustrations approved in P. Nallammal, the appellant's conduct in keeping the disproportionate assets in her name fell within either the conspiracy clause or the 'Thirdly' (intentional aid) clause. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13, 15)
- Section 108, Indian Penal Code, 1860Defines an abettor as one who abets the commission of an offence; set out with its explanations as the framework for deciding whether a non-public servant can abet an offence under Section 13(1)(e). (¶ 10)
- Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860Punishment for abetment where the act abetted is committed in consequence and no express provision is made for punishing the abetment. The appellant's conviction under Section 109 read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act was held sustainable because she assisted the co-accused in accumulating disproportionate assets by allowing them to be held in her name. (¶¶ 2, 11, 15)
- Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Criminal misconduct by a public servant possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Following P. Nallammal, the offence can be abetted by any other person, including a non-public servant, and was abettable even before the 2018 Amendment; concurrent findings that the husband acquired such assets in the appellant's name were not reopened. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Section 12 (as substituted by the 2018 Amendment), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Punishes abetment of any offence under the Act, whether or not the offence is committed in consequence. The Court noted that the substituted section makes all offences under the Act abettable, while holding that Section 13(1)(e) was in any case abettable before the amendment. (¶ 13)
Held
- Following P. Nallammal v. State, an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be abetted by a person who is not a public servant. Anyone who persuades a public servant to take bribes, who joins with the public servant in raising money through bribery and prompts him to keep it in their names, or who keeps the amassed wealth of a public servant in his or her own name is guilty of abetting the offence under Section 13(1)(e). (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The 2018 Amendment substituted Section 12 of the 1988 Act and made all offences under the Act abettable; in any case, there was no doubt that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) was abettable even before that amendment. (¶ 13)
- It was an admitted position, with concurrent findings below, that the appellant's husband acquired assets disproportionate to his income during the check period in the appellant's name. Though it was unclear whether there was a prior conspiracy to amass wealth through bribery, the appellant was actively involved in concealing the wealth by keeping the assets in her name, which falls within the second or third Nallammal illustration and makes her guilty of abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e). (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The argument that the appellant is no longer the co-accused's wife because he has remarried has no force: she was his wife when the offence was committed, and even otherwise it is immaterial, since it was proved that she allowed him to accumulate assets in her name and thereby assisted the accumulation. It was also noted that she was herself a public servant at the time, though prosecuted as the wife of the main accused. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld. Appellant, on bail, directed to surrender within four weeks. Interim orders and pending applications disposed of.