Supreme Court on Abetment by Non-Public Servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State, on May 13, 2025, looked into the extent to which a person who is Non-Public Servants, may influence the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case sought to answer whether a private individual can be prosecuted for aiding a public servant in possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. This case also went back to re-look the decision in P. Nallammal v. State. (1999) in which the Court had answered this very question. The judgment in P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi builds on that ruling overlooking the practical dimension in such abetment and the enforcement of section 109 of IPC ‘abetment’ in the case of assets held through others.

Facts:

Shanthi Pugazhenthi, the appellant, was the wife of a Divisional Manager at United India Insurance Company and worked as an Assistant Superintendent at Chennai Port Trust. The couple came under scrutiny in 2009 during an investigation into a bribery allegation involving her husband. A subsequent raid at their residence led to the discovery of various documents, bank records, and property details in both their names. This resulted in a separate FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) for possessing disproportionate assets. The check period for assessing the assets was from September 1, 2002, to June 16, 2009.

Authorities alleged that assets worth Rs. 60.99 lakh were acquired during this period, whereas the husband’s known income was Rs. 36.76 lakh, indicating a shortfall of Rs. 38.05 lakh. Several of these properties were in the appellant’s name. In 2010, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act against the husband, and under Section 109 IPC against the appellant for abetment, alleging that she knowingly allowed her name and accounts to be used to conceal illicit wealth.

In 2013, the trial court convicted both; the husband received two years’ rigorous imprisonment and the appellant one year. The High Court upheld their convictions in 2018. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that as she was not a public servant, she could not be punished under the PC Act. She also stated that she was no longer married to the accused and denied any involvement in illegal activities.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court began its analysis by considering the legal structure under which a person who is not a public servant can be held liable in a case involving disproportionate assets. The main provision under the Prevention of Corruption Act is Section 13(1)(e), which makes it an offence for a public servant to possess assets beyond their known income. However, this section does not directly deal with the role of non-public persons. To address this, the Court turned to Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. This section states that anyone who abets the commission of an offence can be punished in the same manner as the main offender. The meaning of abetment is explained in Section 107 IPC, which includes instigating, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission of an offence.

The Court referred to the decision in P. Nallammal v. State (1999), where a similar question had arisen. In that case, the Court had said that the provisions of the IPC relating to abetment apply to the PC Act unless the Act itself excludes them. The PC Act does not have such an exclusion. Therefore, the general rules of criminal law continue to apply. The Court considered examples from P. Nallammal, including situations where a person allows their name or property to be used by a public servant to conceal unlawful income. These examples helped explain what kind of actions can be treated as abetment. If a person knowingly allows wealth to be held in their name or helps in transferring such wealth, that person may be said to have intentionally aided the public servant.

In the present case, the Court noted that the appellant had permitted her name and accounts to be used to hold assets. The nature of the assets, the lack of clear explanation, and the timing of their acquisition during the check period led the Court to conclude that the appellant’s role was not passive. She was not unaware of the use of her accounts or the source of funds. The Court held that she had knowingly facilitated the concealment. The appellant argued that since the PC Act was amended in 2018 to introduce Section 12, which explicitly includes abetment, this change showed that earlier the Act did not provide for punishing abetment by non-public persons. The Court rejected this argument. It said that even before this amendment, abetment was punishable under Section 109 IPC. The amendment did not change the law but clarified it.

The Court also addressed the argument that her relationship with the main accused had changed. She said that her husband had remarried. The Court said that what mattered was the conduct during the check period. Whether or not they remained married after the alleged acts did not affect the assessment of conduct during 2002–2009. Finally, the Court observed that although the appellant was a government employee herself, the charges were not based on her own service. She was not being accused of misconduct in her role as an Assistant Superintendent. The case was based on her conduct as a private individual assisting another public servant.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court supported the trial court’s and High Court’s findings. It made a conclusion that all lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence, both substantively and procedurally, in Legal Terms. The Court also concurred that there was adequate evidence to support the assertion that the appellant permitted the misuse of her name and accounts for the purpose of concealing assets. The Court proceeding to rationalize that for purposes of Section 109 IPC, it was irrelevant whether the abettor was in any way involved in the acquisition of the assets. 

This was only to a certain degree. The aider’s contribution was to knowing concealment of possession, and he cannot be oblivious to the unlawful origin of the possession. The appellant’s cooperation in permitting her name to be used, combined with the lack of lawful explanation for the assets, showed that she had acted knowingly. The bench, consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, dismissed the appeal. It said that there was no reason to interfere with the conviction. The reasoning of the High Court and trial court had been consistent with legal principles.

Conclusion:

The P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s approach to responsibility in terms that extend far beyond designations. It illustrates how there is usually much more to corruption than the public servant involved. Some other people, including relatives or business partners, may be willing to aid or cover up these acts. The Court’s determination that the appellant permitted her name and assets to be used as a cover for possession of unexplained assets was pivotal to its reasoning. The Court’s ruling effectively ascertained that supporting actions of corruption, whether overtly or through inaction, has ramifications. The law articulates the burden of responsibility not only to the offender but also to those who facilitate the commission of the offence.