Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran held that even a non-public servant can be convicted for abetting a public servant in accumulating disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State  (2025). 

What was the Background of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State (2025) Case? 

• P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi worked as an Assistant Superintendent in the Chennai Port Trust. 
• Her husband served as a Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 
• In June 2009, an FIR was registered against her husband for allegedly demanding and receiving Rs. 3,000 for handing over a cheque relating to a motor accident claim. 
• During investigation, raids were conducted at their residence. 
• On 31th December, 2009, another FIR was registered against her husband under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 
• The investigation revealed documents relating to movable and immovable properties in the names of both the appellant and her husband. 
• The prosecution alleged that during the period between 1st September, 2002, and June 16, 2009, her husband had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 
• A chargesheet was filed on 18th December, 2010, charging her under section 109 IPC read with sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. 
• The prosecution alleged that the couple had acquired disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 60,99,216. 
• The Trial Court convicted her husband under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and sentenced him to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment. 
• The appellant was convicted under section 109 IPC read with sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act and sentenced to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment. 
• The High Court of Madras dismissed their appeal, upholding the Trial Court's findings. 
• The appellant subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging her conviction. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. 
• The Court relied on its earlier judgment in P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State (1999) which established that an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be abetted by non-public servants. 
• The Court observed that any person who persuades a public servant to take bribes is guilty of committing the offence of abetment under section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. 
• The Court noted that the 2018 Amendment to the PC Act has substituted Section 12, making all offences under the Act abettable. 
• The Supreme Court determined that the appellant's case fell within either the second or third illustration provided in the P. Nallammal case. 
• The Court observed that the appellant was actively involved in concealing disproportionate wealth by keeping assets in her name. 
• The Supreme Court noted that even the appellant was a public servant at the time of commission of the offence, though she was prosecuted in her capacity as the wife of the main accused. 
• The Court rejected the appellant's argument that she was no longer the wife of the co-accused, stating it was immaterial as she was his wife at the time of the offence. 
• The Court emphasized that it is 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. 
• The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 
• The Court directed the appellant, who was on bail, to surrender within four weeks from the date of the judgment. 

What is Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act ? 

• Section 13(1) deals with Criminal misconduct by a public servant. 
• Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, criminalized possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income by a public servant. 
• The provision applied when a public servant or any person on their behalf possessed resources or property that the public servant could not satisfactorily account for during their period of office. 
• The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) defined "known sources of income" as income received from any lawful source that had been properly declared according to applicable laws, rules, or orders governing public servants. 
• This section created a specific offence related to disproportionate assets held by public servants, distinct from other corruption offences. 
• Section 13(1)(e) placed the burden on public servants to satisfactorily explain any assets or resources disproportionate to their declared income. 
• The section was structured to capture situations where the disproportionate assets were held not only by the public servant directly but also by others on their behalf. 
• The provision was designed to address the accumulation of unexplained wealth by public servants during their tenure in office. 
• The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, omitted Section 13(1)(e) from the statute as part of a comprehensive overhaul of anti-corruption legislation. 
• Prior to its omission, Section 13(1)(e) was a key provision used by investigating agencies to prosecute public servants for possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. 
• Despite its omission in 2018, cases that commenced prior to the amendment continue to be prosecuted and adjudicated under the unamended provisions, following the principle that substantive rights and liabilities are determined by the law in force when the cause of action arose. 
• Section 13 (2) says that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.