Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (May 13) ruled that even a non-public servant can be found guilty of abetting a public servant in committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), particularly when assisting the public servant in accumulating disproportionate assets in his/her name.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the conviction of a former public servant's wife for abetting his husband to accumulate disproportionate assets in her name under the PC Act.

“In other words, any person who persuades a public servant to take bribes, decides to raise money through bribes along with a public servant and prompts such public servant to keep the wealth with him/her or keeps the amassed wealth of a public servant in his/her own name is guilty of committing the offence of abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.”, the court observed.

The Appellant's husband, a Divisional Manager at United India Insurance Co. Ltd., was accused in 2009 of demanding bribes and amassing assets beyond his known income between 2002–2009. During raids, investigators discovered properties and investments in the Appellant's name, leading to charges against her under Section 109 IPC (abetment) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (possession of disproportionate assets).

The trial court and High Court convicted her for abetting her husband's corruption, following this, she appealed to the Supreme Court.

Affirming the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia, reiterating the law laid down in the case of P. Nallammal v. State, (1999) 6 SCC 559 observed that even non-public servants can abet corruption by holding illicit assets.

Since the Appellant abetted her public servant husband to amass property disproportionate to his income in her name, the Court justified the conviction of the Appellant under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.

“In the case at hand, 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.”, the court said.

“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.”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: P. SHANTHI PUGAZHENTHI VERSUS STATE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 558

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Jain, Adv. Mr. Prayag Jain, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR (appearance not given)