Penal Code, 1860 – s.109 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(2), 13(1)(e) – Offences under, abettable by a non-public servant – Appellant accused of abetting her husband, an MLAaccused no. 1, in the accumulation of disproportionate assets – Trial court convicted accused no. 1 u/ss.13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, whereas the appellant-accused no.2 u/ss.13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act r/w s.109 IPC, and sentenced accordingly – Attachment Order passed attaching the disproportionate assets belonging to the accused no. 1 and the appellant – Appeal thereagainst dismissed by the High Court, however, the High Court modified the attachment order by reducing the quantum of the disproportionate assets calculated by the trial court – Appeal before this Court challenging the impugned order upholding the appellant’s conviction and sentence; the attachment Order as modified by the impugned order; and the Administrative Order by which the Chief Justice of the High Court had listed the criminal appeals for fresh hearing: Held: Per Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J: It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and a solitary circumstance of name-lending, such as the one at present, cannot lead to draw and sustain an inference which unerringly points to the guilt of the appellant – There has to be something more in the form of positive evidence to satisfy the essential requirements for the offence of abetment – Life and liberty are not things to be trifled with on the basis of conjectures and surmises – Presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence and it gets dislodged only by presenting cogent and reliable evidence – No evidence on record, much less any evidence to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the appellant conspired/colluded with or intentionally aided the 1st Accused in committing offences u/ss.13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) – Thus, the acts of the appellant do not fall within the ambit of s.107 and in such circumstances, it would be unsafe to sustain her conviction with the aid of s.109 IPC – Impugned Order set aside to the extent of conviction of the appellant and she stands discharged of the liability of her bail bonds and sureties – Since the appellant is acquitted, the attachment order does not require any interference as it attaches the assets standing in her name beyond the value which has been explained by the appellant and accepted by the courts below – Impugned Administrative Order, having worked itself out, does not call for any interference – As evincible from the impugned Administrative Order, there did not exist any ‘Judgment’, the then Chief Justice of the High Court, thus, cannot be faulted for restoring the criminal appeal for fresh hearing. [Paras 36-40] Per Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Partly dissenting): Where there is abetment by a close relative in corruption matters, such as the spouse in the present case, the culpability of such a relative has to be tested by the surrounding circumstances and his/her overall conduct because in such cases, there would rarely be direct evidence of abetment – Appellant was an accomplice in the commission of the crime when she allowed accused no.1 to register the properties in her name – Appellant actively participated in the purchase of various movable and immovable properties in her name – It has come in unrebuttable evidence of the prosecution that the appellant had visited the office of the concerned Registrar for getting the sale deeds registered, and this had happened on more than one occasion for different sale deeds – Trial court and the High Court rightly accepted the prosecution’s case that the appellant knowingly allowed her husband to accumulate illegal wealth in her name and thus, committed an offence u/s.109 IPC r/w s.13(1)(e) and s.13(2), thus, no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court – No fault in the administrative order passed by the High Court. [Paras 15-19, 20, 21, 26, 27] Per curiam: In view of difference of opinion pertaining to the impugned order upholding the appellant’s conviction and sentence, the Registry to place the papers of the appeal before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions. [Paras 1, 3]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.