The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ruling that a non-public servant (appellant) can abet the offence of possessing disproportionate assets by aiding a public servant (her husband). Relying on P. Nallammal (1999), the Court held that concealing illicit assets in the appellant’s name constituted intentional aid under Section 107 IPC, irrespective of marital status. The 2018 amendment to Section 12 of the PC Act (explicitly punishing abetment) was noted, though the offence was abettable even prior. The judgment reaffirms that abetment charges apply when a person facilitates the concealment of disproportionate wealth.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi, an Assistant Superintendent at Chennai Port Trust, who was convicted under Section 109 of the IPC (abetment) read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for aiding her husband, a public servant, in acquiring disproportionate assets. The allegations stemmed from an FIR registered in 2009 against her husband, a Divisional Manager at United India Insurance Co. Ltd., for demanding a bribe of Rs. 3,000 in a motor accident claim case. During investigations, raids revealed movable and immovable properties worth Rs. 60.99 lakh held jointly or in the appellant’s name, disproportionate to their known income during the check period (2002–2009). The Trial Court (2013) convicted both, sentencing the husband to 2 years’ RI under the PC Act and the appellant to 1 year’s RI for abetment.
The Madras High Court (2018) upheld the conviction, noting minor discrepancies in income calculations but emphasizing the glaring disproportionality. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that properties in her name couldn’t be attributed to her husband’s misconduct and that their subsequent divorce absolved her liability. However, the Court dismissed her appeal, holding that active concealment of illicit assets in her name constituted abetment under Section 107 IPC, irrespective of marital status, reaffirming the precedent in P. Nallammal (1999).
Procedural History:
The case originated with an FIR registered in June 2009 against the appellant’s husband, a public servant, for demanding a bribe. During investigations, raids uncovered disproportionate assets in the appellant’s name, leading to a second FIR (December 2009) under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A chargesheet was filed in December 2010, implicating both the appellant (for abetment under Section 109 IPC) and her husband. The Trial Court convicted them in May 2013, sentencing the husband under the PC Act and the appellant for abetment. Their appeals were dismissed by the Madras High Court in January 2018, which upheld the disproportionate assets findings despite minor calculation discrepancies. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that her divorce and the properties in her name absolved her liability. In its May 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, citing P. Nallammal (1999) to hold that her role in concealing assets constituted abetment under Section 107 IPC, regardless of marital status. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks.
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while upholding the appellant’s conviction under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court emphasized that the offense of possessing disproportionate assets by a public servant can indeed be abetted by a non-public servant, including family members. Relying on its earlier precedent in P. Nallammal (1999), the Bench clarified that the act of holding illicit assets in one’s name to conceal a public servant’s disproportionate wealth squarely falls within the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, particularly under the third clause (intentional aiding).
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument about subsequent divorce affecting liability, observing that her complicity during the check period (2002-2009) was established by clear evidence of properties acquired in her name. Significantly, the judgment noted that while the 2018 amendment to Section 12 of the PC Act explicitly punishes abetment of all offenses under the Act, the legal position regarding abetment of Section 13(1)(e) offenses was already well-settled even prior to the amendment. The Court underscored that such abetment could occur through various means – instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid – all of which attract criminal liability under the IPC.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final judgment delivered on May 13, 2025, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi under Section 109 of the IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Madras High Court, ruling that the appellant had abetted her husband (a public servant) in acquiring and concealing assets disproportionate to his known income during the check period (2002–2009). The Court categorically rejected her defense that the properties in her name could not be linked to her husband’s misconduct or that their subsequent divorce absolved her liability, emphasizing that her active role in holding illicit assets constituted intentional aiding under Section 107 IPC.
Relying on the precedent set in P. Nallammal (1999), the judgment clarified that even non-public servants can be held liable for abetting corruption offenses, particularly when they facilitate the concealment of disproportionate wealth. The Court also noted that while the 2018 amendment to Section 12 of the PC Act explicitly penalized abetment of all offenses under the Act, the legal principle was already well-established prior to the amendment. The appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve her one-year sentence. The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s strict stance against corruption and its abetment, ensuring accountability for all parties involved in the concealment of ill-gotten assets.
Case Details:
Case Title: P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai Citation: 2025 INSC 674 Criminal Appeal No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3472 of 2018) Date of Judgment: May 13, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia & Justice K. Vinod Chandran