Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Assistant Superintendent Convicted for Abetting Acquisition of Disproportionate Assets

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court that had sustained her conviction and sentence under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for abetting acquisition of disproportionate assets.

The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The bench held that the appellant had participated in concealing wealth amassed by the main accused by keeping assets in her name and thereby aided the commission of the offence. The Court noted the settled principle that a non-public servant may abet an offence under Section 13(1)(e) and applied the illustrations in P. Nallammal v. State to the facts of the case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "If we apply the principles laid down in the P. Nallammal case (supra), the present appellant’s case would definitely fall either in the 2nd or 3rd illustration. It is not clear from the record whether the appellant and her husband entered into a prior conspiracy to amass a huge bulk of wealth through bribery, but there is no doubt that after such disproportionate wealth was amassed, the appellant has been actively involved in concealing such wealth by keeping assets in her name. By doing so, the appellant is undoubtedly guilty of offence of abetment falling under section109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act." The bench also recorded that the 2018 Amendment to the PC Act reinforced that offences under the Act are abettable, though it did not alter the result in this matter.

Background

The dispute arose from two FIRs beginning in June 2009 and a subsequent registration on 31.12.2009 alleging illegal demand and receipt of money and, during searches, discovery of documents showing movable and immovable properties held in the appellant’s and her husband’s names. The prosecution alleged that between 1.09.2002 and 16.06.2009 the husband, then a Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co., acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 60,99,216 (the trial court quantified disproportionality at Rs. 37,98,752 for the husband). A chargesheet dated 18.12.2010 charged the appellant under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act for abetting her husband.

The trial court convicted both accused on 27.05.2013; the husband received two years’ rigorous imprisonment, and the appellant received one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The Madras High Court on 10.01.2018 dismissed their appeals, noting that “there is no material to show that the assets acquired during the check period, were acquired from their known source or sources of income,” and that even accepting the accused’ explanations did not remove the disproportionality. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that properties held in her name could not be deemed disproportionate to her, and that changed marital status of the co-accused undermined the conviction; the State maintained she abetted concealment and accumulation of disproportionate assets. The Supreme Court found the concurrent findings sustainable, held that the appellant’s conduct fell within abetment under Section 107 IPC and Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act (as interpreted in P. Nallammal), and dismissed the appeal. The appellant, on bail, was directed to surrender within four weeks. Interim orders and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 674 Case Title: P. SHANTHI PUGAZHENTHI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPE/CBI/ACB/ CHENNAI Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]