Date of the Judgment: December 19, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1010
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a wife be charged with abetting her husband’s corruption if she possesses assets disproportionate to her known income? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court decision that had discharged the wife in a case involving disproportionate assets. This case highlights the complexities of prosecuting corruption and the role of family members in such cases.
Case Background
The case began with the registration of FIR No. 56/2009 on November 25, 2019, against Anil Kumar Sethi, husband of the respondent, Pratima Behera. Anil Kumar Sethi, a public servant working as an Assistant Engineer, was accused of possessing disproportionate assets to his known sources of income, amounting to ₹40,54,561. The investigation revealed that Anil Kumar Sethi had joined service in 1993 and married Pratima Behera in 1996. Though Pratima Behera claimed to have filed Income Tax Returns, the Income Tax Department could not trace them. The disproportionate assets of Anil Kumar Sethi were calculated to be ₹39,96,857.7, which was 155% of his total income during the check period from September 3, 1993, to August 26, 2009.
Both Anil Kumar Sethi and Pratima Behera filed applications for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore. The Trial Court dismissed these petitions, finding a prima facie case against both. However, the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No. 381 of 2016, set aside the charges against Pratima Behera, discharging her under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., leading to the current appeal by the State of Orissa before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Anil Kumar Sethi joined service as Stipendiary Engineer. |
| 1996 | Anil Kumar Sethi married Pratima Behera. |
| March 1997 | Anil Kumar Sethi joined as Stipendiary Engineer in R.D. Department. |
| January 1999 | Anil Kumar Sethi became a regular Assistant Engineer. |
| November 25, 2019 | FIR No. 56/2009 registered against Anil Kumar Sethi under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. |
| March 5, 2016 | Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, dismissed discharge petitions of Anil Kumar Sethi and Pratima Behera. |
| January 31, 2017 | High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, set aside charges against Pratima Behera and discharged her. |
| December 19, 2024 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court, the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, initially rejected the discharge petitions filed by both Anil Kumar Sethi and Pratima Behera, finding a potential prima facie case against them. The High Court of Orissa, however, overturned the Trial Court’s decision regarding Pratima Behera, concluding that there was no concrete evidence to show that she abetted her husband’s acquisition of disproportionate assets. The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that Pratima Behera had no source of income. This led to the State of Orissa appealing to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:
- Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant who is in possession of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.
- Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section specifies the punishment for offences under Section 13(1) of the Act.
- Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for abetment of an offense.
- Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for the discharge of an accused if the charge is considered groundless.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, aims to combat corruption among public servants. Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, is relevant as it addresses the concept of abetment, which is crucial in determining the liability of a non-public servant in a corruption case. The interplay of these provisions determines whether a non-public servant can be charged with abetting a public servant’s offense under the PC Act.
Arguments
Arguments by the State of Orissa:
- The State argued that a non-public servant could abet an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, and that the only way to prosecute such an offender is through a trial as envisaged under the PC Act.
- The State contended that Pratima Behera claimed to be an income tax assessee but failed to provide tax return receipts, and these returns could not be found in the IT Department.
- The State argued that the Trial Court had rightly found a prima facie case against Pratima Behera and her husband, and the High Court should not have interfered at this stage.
- The State relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State [(1999) 6 SCC 559] to support its contention that a non-public servant can abet an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.
Arguments by Pratima Behera:
- Pratima Behera argued that the High Court was correct in holding that the Investigating Officer failed to prove that she had no source of income.
- She contended that she is a self-dependent woman with her own income sources, including dairy farming, tuition, and data entry business, and therefore, she could not be held liable for her husband’s alleged disproportionate assets.
- She claimed to be an income tax assessee since 2000-2001 and has been filing Income Tax Returns regularly.
- She also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State [(1999) 6 SCC 559] to argue that merely because some assets are in the name of a non-public servant, without any element of abetment, they should not be tried along with the public servant.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-public servant can be charged for abetting an offence under the PC Act? | A non-public servant can abet an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. | State of Orissa |
| The only mode of prosecuting a non-public servant for abetment is through a trial under the PC Act. | State of Orissa | |
| Merely having assets in the name of a non-public servant does not imply abetment. | Pratima Behera | |
| Whether the High Court was correct in discharging Pratima Behera? | The High Court was incorrect in interfering with the Trial Court’s order which found a prima facie case. | State of Orissa |
| The High Court was correct in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that Pratima Behera had no source of income. | Pratima Behera | |
| Whether Pratima Behera had independent sources of income? | Pratima Behera failed to provide tax return receipts, and the IT Department could not trace her returns. | State of Orissa |
| Pratima Behera is a self-dependent woman with various income sources and has been filing Income Tax Returns regularly since 2000-2001. | Pratima Behera |
Innovativeness of the Argument: Both parties innovatively used the same judgment of P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State [(1999) 6 SCC 559] to support their respective arguments, showcasing how legal precedents can be interpreted differently to fit different factual scenarios.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Court’s order that found a prima facie case against the respondent.
- Whether the High Court correctly interpreted the scope of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. while discharging the respondent.
- Whether a non-public servant can be charged with abetting an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.
- Whether the High Court was correct in evaluating the materials at the stage of framing of charge.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Court’s order that found a prima facie case against the respondent. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Trial Court’s order. It stated that the Trial Court had considered the scope of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and found a prima facie case. |
| Whether the High Court correctly interpreted the scope of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. while discharging the respondent. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 239 of Cr.P.C.. The Court noted that at the stage of discharge, the focus should be on whether a prima facie case exists, not on whether there is “clinching” evidence. |
| Whether a non-public servant can be charged with abetting an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. | The Supreme Court reiterated that a non-public servant can be charged with abetting an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, especially if there are materials or circumstances that cast strong suspicion on their role in the acquisition of disproportionate assets. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in evaluating the materials at the stage of framing of charge. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the merits of the case and evaluating the evidence as if it were a trial court, which is not permissible at the stage of framing of charge. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Anr. [(1986) 2 SCC 716] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Explained that the obligation to discharge an accused under Section 239 arises only when the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless. |
| State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors. [(2000) 8 SCC 239] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Clarified that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not to examine the materials in detail but only to see if a prima facie case is made out. |
| Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 142] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Stated that the High Court should not rely on documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C. while quashing a charge. |
| P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State [(1999) 6 SCC 559] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Clarified that a non-public servant can be prosecuted for abetting an offense under the PC Act, but mere presence of assets in their name does not automatically imply abetment. |
| Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Explained | Defines the conditions for discharge of an accused when the charge is groundless. |
| Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Explained | Defines the punishment for abetment of an offence. |
| Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Statute | Explained | Defines criminal misconduct by a public servant who possesses disproportionate assets. |
| Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Statute | Explained | Specifies the punishment for offences under Section 13(1) of the Act. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| State of Orissa’s submission that a non-public servant can abet an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. | The Court agreed with this submission, stating that a non-public servant can be charged with abetment if there is a strong suspicion of their role in the acquisition of disproportionate assets. |
| State of Orissa’s submission that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court’s order. | The Court upheld this submission, stating that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence at the stage of framing of charge. |
| Pratima Behera’s submission that she has independent sources of income and is not liable for her husband’s assets. | The Court did not accept this submission at the stage of framing of charge, stating that the High Court should not have considered such detailed arguments at this stage. |
| Pratima Behera’s submission that the prosecution failed to prove she had no source of income. | The Court stated that the burden is not on the accused to prove her source of income at the stage of framing of charge, but the prosecution needs to show a prima facie case of abetment. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Anr. [(1986) 2 SCC 716] to emphasize that discharge under Section 239 is only when the charge is groundless.
- The Court used State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors. [(2000) 8 SCC 239] to reiterate that at the stage of framing charge, a detailed examination of materials is not required, only a prima facie case needs to be seen.
- The Court cited Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 142] to highlight that the High Court should not have relied on documents beyond those in Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C.
- The Court referred to P. Nallammal and Anr. v. State [(1999) 6 SCC 559] to clarify that while a non-public servant can be prosecuted for abetment, mere presence of assets in their name is not sufficient for prosecution.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:
- The High Court’s overreach in examining the evidence in detail at the stage of framing of charge, which is beyond the scope of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C..
- The need to ensure that the trial court’s prima facie assessment is not interfered with unless there are exceptional reasons.
- The importance of considering the materials presented by the prosecution to see if there is a prima facie case of abetment.
- The understanding that a non-public servant can be held liable for abetting the commission of an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act if they play a significant role in the acquisition of disproportionate assets.
The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the focus should be on whether a prima facie case exists, not on whether there is “clinching” evidence. The Court also noted that the High Court should not have considered documents that were not part of the investigation records at the stage of framing of charge.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| High Court’s overreach in examining evidence at the stage of framing of charge | 35% |
| Need to ensure that the trial court’s prima facie assessment is not interfered with | 30% |
| Importance of considering prosecution’s materials for prima facie case of abetment | 25% |
| Liability of non-public servant for abetting corruption | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered whether the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence at the stage of framing the charge. The Court reasoned that the High Court should have only considered whether a prima facie case existed based on the materials presented by the prosecution, not whether there was “clinching” evidence. The Court also considered the legal position that a non-public servant can be charged with abetment under the PC Act if they play a significant role in the acquisition of disproportionate assets. The Court rejected the argument that the respondent should not be tried because she had independent sources of income, stating that these are matters to be considered during the trial, not at the stage of framing of charge.
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law, as it found the High Court’s approach to be flawed in its interpretation of the scope of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and the stage of framing of charge. The Court’s final decision was based on the correct interpretation of the law and the need to ensure that the trial court’s prima facie assessment is not interfered with unnecessarily.
The Court stated that, “…at the stage of consideration of a petition for discharge what is to be considered whether there is a ‘prima facie’ case and certainly, the endeavour cannot be to find whether ‘clinching’ materials are there or not.”
The Court also stated that, “…while considering the question of abetment for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the question is whether there is material(s) or circumstances casting strong suspicion of the co-accused to have played significant role in negotiating on the figure of amount disproportionately amassed.”
The Court observed that, “In short, while reiterating the position that in a prosecution, presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused, it has to be said that at the stage of framing charge, even a very strong suspicion, of course, founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable the Court to frame charge against an accused.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised two judges, C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Karol, J., who both concurred with the judgment.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the legal interpretation of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and the principles governing the stage of framing of charge. The Court applied these principles to the facts of the case, concluding that the High Court had erred in its approach. The decision has implications for future cases involving the prosecution of non-public servants for abetting corruption, as it clarifies the scope of judicial review at the stage of framing charges.
The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reiterated the existing legal principles regarding the scope of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and the stage of framing of charge. The Court clarified how these principles should be applied in cases involving the prosecution of non-public servants for abetting corruption.
Key Takeaways
- A non-public servant can be charged with abetting a public servant’s offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act if there is a strong suspicion of their involvement in the acquisition of disproportionate assets.
- At the stage of framing of charge, the court should only consider whether a prima facie case exists, not whether there is “clinching” evidence.
- The High Court should not interfere with the Trial Court’s order framing charges unless there are exceptional reasons.
- The burden is not on the accused to prove their source of income at the stage of framing of charge, but the prosecution needs to show a prima facie case of abetment.
- The High Court should not rely on documents beyond those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C. while quashing a charge.
This judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review at the stage of framing of charge in corruption cases involving non-public servants. It reinforces the principle that a prima facie case is sufficient to proceed with the trial, and the High Court should not delve into the merits of the case at this stage. This decision will likely have a significant impact on future corruption cases, particularly those involving family members of public servants.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law and to endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, considering that the case is from the year 2013.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court should not interfere with the Trial Court’s order framing charges unless there are exceptional reasons and that at the stage of framing of charge, the court should only consider whether a prima facie case exists, not whether there is “clinching” evidence. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that a non-public servant can be charged with abetting an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act if there is a strongsuspicion of their involvement in the acquisition of disproportionate assets. The case also highlights the importance of following the correct procedure at the stage of framing of charge and clarifies the scope of judicial review at this stage.
This judgment has clarified the law regarding the prosecution of non-public servants for abetting corruption. It has reiterated the principles that a prima facie case is sufficient to proceed with the trial and that the High Court should not delve into the merits of the case at the stage of framing of charge. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of considering the materials presented by the prosecution to see if there is a prima facie case of abetment. This development of law is significant as it provides clarity on the role of family members in corruption cases and ensures that they are not automatically exonerated from charges if there is a strong suspicion of their involvement in the acquisition of disproportionate assets.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Orissa vs. Pratima Behera is a significant ruling that upholds the prosecution of non-public servants for abetting corruption. By setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of following the correct procedure at the stage of framing of charge and has clarified the scope of judicial review at this stage. This judgment will have a lasting impact on future corruption cases, particularly those involving family members of public servants, and will ensure that such cases are dealt with in accordance with the law. The Court has also clarified that while the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused, at the stage of framing of charge, even a very strong suspicion, founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable the Court to frame charge against an accused.