13 May 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has affirmed the conviction and sentence of an Assistant Superintendent at the Chennai Port Trust, who was found guilty of abetting her husband in a case of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant had challenged the Madras High Court's order, which upheld her conviction under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (1988 Act).

The case originated in June 2009 with an FIR against the appellant's husband, then a Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., for allegedly demanding a bribe. Subsequent raids at his residence on December 31, 2009, led to the discovery of incriminating documents related to movable and immovable properties held by both the husband and the appellant.

The prosecution alleged that during a check period between September 1, 2002, and June 16, 2009, the appellant's husband acquired disproportionate assets totaling Rs. 60,99,216. A chargesheet filed in December 2010 accused the husband under the 1988 Act and the appellant for abetment.

Both the Trial Court (in May 2013) and the High Court (in January 2018) found the husband guilty of acquiring disproportionate assets worth Rs. 37,98,752 and the appellant guilty of abetting the crime. The husband was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, while the appellant received a one-year rigorous imprisonment sentence.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that any property acquired disproportionately by her husband in her name could not be attributed to her as disproportionate assets. She also contended that her subsequent separation and her husband's remarriage should be considered. The prosecution, conversely, maintained that the appellant actively conspired with her husband in the commission of the crime.

The sole question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

The Court referred to its previous landmark judgment in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State (1999), which clarified that even a non-public servant can abet an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The P. Nallammal case provided illustrations of abetment, including instances where a person prompts a public servant to keep ill-gotten wealth in their name or actively conceals such wealth.

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the appellant's actions clearly fell within the scope of abetment. The Court noted that it was an admitted position that the husband had acquired disproportionate assets in the appellant's name. The Court stated that while it was unclear if a prior conspiracy existed, the appellant's active involvement in concealing the disproportionate wealth by holding assets in her name unequivocally established her guilt of abetment.

The Court also observed that the appellant herself was a public servant at the time of the offence, though prosecuted in her capacity as the wife of the main accused. Her argument regarding her marital status at the time of the appeal was deemed irrelevant, as the focus was on her actions during the commission of the crime.

Concluding its examination, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant, who was out on bail, has been directed to surrender within four weeks.

Section 109., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988