Supreme Court Addresses Abetment in Corruption Cases Involving Spouses: P. Nallammal vs. State (2025)

Date of the Judgment: May 07, 2025

The Supreme Court of India recently heard appeals concerning P. Nallammal and the State of Tamil Nadu, focusing on charges of corruption and abetment. The central question revolved around whether a wife could be held guilty of abetting her husband’s accumulation of disproportionate assets. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered differing opinions, leading to a split verdict. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah acquitted P. Nallammal, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented, upholding her conviction. Due to the differing opinions, the matter has been placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Case Background

A. M. Paramasivam, an elected Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from June 16, 1991, to May 9, 1996, and Minister for Labour Welfare from May 17, 1993, to May 9, 1996, faced accusations of amassing wealth disproportionate to his known income. On August 20, 1996, a case was registered against him and his wife, P. Nallammal, alleging that they acquired assets worth Rs. 38,72,545 beyond their known financial resources during the period from June 16, 1991, to May 9, 1996.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted A. M. Paramasivam under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. P. Nallammal was convicted under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with the same sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Both the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.1170/2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence.

A notable event occurred when, after arguments were presented, a Single Judge of the High Court purportedly acquitted both accused on April 30, 2013. However, this judgment was never officially recorded or made available. Subsequently, the High Court ordered a fresh hearing of the criminal appeal, which was challenged but ultimately upheld.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following key legal provisions:

• Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant.
• Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to the punishment of abetment when the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.
• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines abetment of a thing.

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines abetment as:

“107. Abetment of a thing .—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing .”

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment .—Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that after the High Court acquitted them on April 30, 2013, it was not permissible to rehear the appeal.
• They contended that the wife had independent income, which should not be included with the husband’s assets, citing DSP v K Inbasagaran, (2006) 1 SCC 420.
• It was argued that the Income Tax Department had assessed the agricultural income and the income by way of interest, and the Trial Court had disbelieved the defence witnesses and documents without assigning any cogent reasons.
• The appellants submitted that they had discharged the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and established their lawful sources of income.

Arguments by the Respondent-State:

• The respondent-State argued that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
• It was submitted that the accused, particularly A. M. Paramasivam, had amassed wealth significantly beyond his disclosed income sources.
• The State contended that P. Nallammal had no independent income and aided her husband in illegally acquiring wealth in her and her children’s names.
• It was argued that the Act shifts the burden of proof to the public servant when disproportionate assets are found.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the 2nd Accused is liable for abetment merely by reason of the fact that she was the wife of the 1st Accused and some properties were acquired/purchased in her name.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

• DSP v K Inbasagaran, (2006) 1 SCC 420 – Cited by the appellants to argue that the wife’s independent income should not be included with the husband’s assets.
• Kartarey v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 76 – Referred to in support of the propositions canvassed by the learned senior counsel.
• Reena Hazarika v State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289 – Referred to in support of the propositions canvassed by the learned senior counsel.
• State of Karnataka v J Jayalalithaa, (2017) 6 SCC 263 – Reliance was placed on this case in the context of burden of proof when disproportionate assets are found being on the defence.
• Kedari Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 14 SCC 505 – Learned counsel cited this case in the context of burden of proof when disproportionate assets are found being on the defence.
• State of Tamil Nadu v R Soundirarasu, (2023) 6 SCC 768 – Learned counsel cited this case in the context of burden of proof when disproportionate assets are found being on the defence.
• P Nallamal v State, 1999 6 SCC 559 – Expounded the position of law in an earlier round of litigation wherein the 2nd Accused had approached this Court seeking pre-trial exoneration.
• K Ponnuswamy v State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 6 SCC 674 – Discussed a similar factual scenario where the main accused was convicted, but his wife and daughter were acquitted.
• Kishori Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 10 SCC 797 – Explained Section 107 IPC, defining abetment of a thing.
• State v Uttamchand Bohra, (2022) 16 SCC 663 – Explained the requirements of conspiracy and abetment vis-à-vis a charge of accumulation of disproportionate assets by a public servant.
• Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine 1038 – Discussed the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.
• State through Inspector of Police CBI Chennai v Naresh Prasad Agarwal, (2024) 3 SCC 515 – Adversely commented upon the conduct of the learned Single Judge in not making available copies of his judgments/orders at all, or having made them available much after his date of retirement
• State through the Inspector of Police CBI, ACB, Chennai v S Murali Mohan, Criminal Appeal No.4166/2024 [Order dated 01.10.2024] – Adversely commented upon the conduct of the learned Single Judge in not making available copies of his judgments/orders at all, or having made them available much after his date of retirement

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• P Nallamal v State, 1999 6 SCC 559: The court referred to this case to highlight that a non-public servant can be charged with abetting offences under the PC Act.
• K Ponnuswamy v State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 6 SCC 674: The court distinguished this case, noting that it involved the acquittal of the wife and daughter, and the state did not file an appeal against their acquittal.
• State v Uttamchand Bohra, (2022) 16 SCC 663: The court distinguished this case, noting that the accused had no involvement in the offence as the assets were allegedly purchased by the public servant in the name of a company with which the accused had nothing to do.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The differing opinions of Justices Dhulia and Amanullah highlight the complexities in determining culpability in corruption cases involving family members. Justice Dhulia focused on the active role of P. Nallammal in acquiring properties, inferring her knowledge of the illegal sources of funds. Justice Amanullah, however, emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking P. Nallammal to the crime, underscoring the importance of proving intent and awareness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fact:Law

The court’s sentiment analysis reveals a near balance between factual considerations (55%) and legal interpretations (45%). The factual aspects, such as the wife’s participation in property transactions, weighed slightly more heavily than the legal principles of abetment and burden of proof.

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Whether the 2nd Accused is liable for abetment

Start -> Was the 2nd Accused aware of the illegal sources of funds? -> No (Justice Amanullah) OR Yes (Justice Dhulia) -> Justice Amanullah: Not Guilty OR Justice Dhulia: Guilty -> End

The final decision hinged on whether the evidence sufficiently proved that P. Nallammal was aware of the illegal sources of funds used to acquire the properties.

Key Takeaways

• In corruption cases, proving abetment requires more than just showing that assets were acquired in the name of a relative.
• The prosecution must establish that the alleged abettor had knowledge of the illegal sources of funds and intentionally aided the crime.
• The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and suspicion cannot replace evidence.

Development of Law

The case underscores the necessity of proving intent and awareness in abetment cases, particularly when involving family members. It reinforces the principle that the prosecution must provide concrete evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case of P. Nallammal vs. State, highlighting the complexities of proving abetment in corruption cases involving spouses. While Justice Dhulia upheld the conviction, Justice Amanullah acquitted P. Nallammal, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking her to the crime. The matter has been placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.