Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 674
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Can a person be convicted for assisting another in accumulating wealth disproportionate to their known income, even if that person is not a public servant? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State, concerning the conviction of an individual for abetting her husband’s acquisition of disproportionate assets. The court upheld the conviction, clarifying the scope and applicability of abetment laws under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. This judgment reinforces the legal framework against corruption by clarifying the culpability of those who enable public servants to illicitly amass wealth.

Case Background

In June 2009, an FIR was filed against the appellant’s husband, alleging he illegally demanded and received Rs. 3,000 for a motor accident claim cheque. Subsequently, on December 31, 2009, while the husband was serving as Divisional Manager at United India Insurance Co. Ltd., another FIR was registered against him under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘1988 Act’). A search of their residence revealed incriminating documents related to movable and immovable properties held in the names of both the appellant and her husband.

The core allegation was that between September 1, 2002, and June 16, 2009, the appellant’s husband acquired assets disproportionate to his known income. These properties were held in both his and the appellant’s names.

Timeline

Date Event
June 2009 First Information Report (FIR) registered against the appellant’s husband for allegedly demanding and receiving a bribe.
31.12.2009 Another FIR registered against the appellant’s husband under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for possessing disproportionate assets.
1.09.2002 – 16.06.2009 Check period during which the appellant’s husband allegedly acquired disproportionate assets.
18.12.2010 Chargesheet filed against the appellant and her husband, detailing the movable and immovable assets acquired during the check period.
27.05.2013 Trial Court found the appellant and her husband guilty. The husband was convicted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, and the appellant was convicted under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
10.01.2018 The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeals of both the appellant and her husband, upholding the Trial Court’s decision.
13.05.2025 The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi, affirming the conviction for abetment of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, on May 27, 2013, found both the appellant and her husband guilty. It determined that the husband had acquired disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 37,98,752 during the check period, exceeding his known sources of income. The appellant was convicted for abetting her husband in acquiring these assets. The husband received a sentence of 2 years of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, while the appellant was sentenced to 1 year of R.I. under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Tender Rejection in Foreign Funded Project: National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Montecarlo Limited & Anr. (2022) INSC 124

Both the appellant and her husband appealed this decision, but on January 10, 2018, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed their appeals, finding no reason to overturn the Trial Court’s findings. The High Court noted that even with minor discrepancies in the calculation of income, the disproportionality of assets remained significantly high. The court emphasized that there was a lack of evidence to show that the assets acquired during the check period came from known sources of income, and even if the explanations provided by the accused were accepted, the disproportionality persisted.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

  • Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines abetment. A person abets an act by instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding the commission of that act.
  • Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines an abettor as someone who abets either the commission of an offense or an act that would be an offense if committed by a person capable of committing an offense.
  • Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant who is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to their known sources of income.
  • Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Prescribes the punishment for criminal misconduct.

Section 107 of the IPC states:

“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 108 of the IPC defines ‘Abettor’ as follows:

“108. Abettor —A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • The appellant argued that the lower courts erred in convicting her for abetting her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets.
  • She contended that any property purchased by her husband in her name during the check period cannot automatically be considered disproportionate in her hands.
  • The appellant further pointed out that she is no longer married to the co-accused, who has since remarried.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

  • The prosecution argued that the appellant was complicit with her husband in the commission of the crime.
  • They contended that she abetted the commission of the offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
Main Submission Appellant’s Sub-Submissions Prosecution’s Sub-Submissions
Conviction for Abetment ✓ The lower courts erred in convicting her for abetting her husband.
✓ Property purchased in her name cannot be considered disproportionate in her hands. 		✓ The appellant was complicit with her husband in the commission of the crime.
✓ She abetted the offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
See also  Supreme Court allows quashing of non-compoundable offenses based on compromise: Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Issue How the Court Dealt with It
Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The Court held that the appellant was rightly convicted. It found that the appellant was actively involved in concealing the wealth amassed by her husband by keeping assets in her name. This action constituted abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

  • P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police (1999) 6 SCC 559 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be abetted by a non-public servant. The court provided illustrations of how a non-public servant could be guilty of abetment, such as persuading a public servant to take bribes or keeping the amassed wealth of a public servant in their name.
Authority How the Court Considered It
P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police (1999) 6 SCC 559 The Court applied the principles laid down in this case to the present appellant’s case, determining that the appellant’s actions fell within the illustrations provided in P. Nallammal. The Court noted that the appellant was actively involved in concealing the disproportionate wealth by keeping assets in her name, thus being guilty of abetment.

Judgment

Submission by the Parties How the Court Treated It
Appellant’s argument that property in her name should not be considered disproportionate. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellant was actively involved in concealing the wealth by keeping assets in her name, which constitutes abetment.
Prosecution’s argument that the appellant was complicit in the crime. The Court accepted this argument, stating that the appellant’s actions of allowing her husband to accumulate assets in her name assisted in the accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, thus proving her complicity.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police (1999) 6 SCC 559: The Court relied on this authority to illustrate how a non-public servant can abet an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The principles laid down in this case were directly applied to the appellant’s actions, confirming her guilt of abetment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was actively involved in concealing the disproportionate wealth amassed by her husband. The Court emphasized that keeping assets in her name directly facilitated the concealment of illicitly acquired wealth, thereby constituting abetment. The concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the acquisition of disproportionate assets in the appellant’s name also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

Reason Percentage
Active involvement in concealing wealth by keeping assets in her name 60%
Concurrent findings of lower courts regarding disproportionate assets 40%
See also  Supreme Court sets aside High Court order on suspension of sentence in murder case: Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar (2018)

Fact:Law

Category Percentage
Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) 70%
Law (legal considerations) 30%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

Start: Appellant’s husband acquired disproportionate assets during the check period.
↓
Assets were acquired in the appellant’s name.
↓
Appellant was actively involved in concealing the wealth by keeping assets in her name.
↓
This action constitutes abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
↓
Appellant is guilty of offence under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.
↓
Conclusion: Appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

Key Takeaways

  • A person can be convicted for abetting an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, even if they are not a public servant.
  • Actively concealing illicitly acquired wealth by keeping assets in one’s name constitutes abetment.
  • The principles established in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State continue to be relevant in determining abetment in corruption cases.

Directions

The appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a person who actively conceals the wealth amassed by a public servant by keeping assets in their name is guilty of abetment of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, even if they are not a public servant. This reaffirms and clarifies the existing legal position established in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant for abetting her husband’s acquisition of disproportionate assets. The judgment reinforces the importance of preventing corruption by holding individuals accountable for facilitating the concealment of illicitly acquired wealth.

Source: P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State