1999 (8) TMI 953 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Appellants are liable to be prosecuted along with public servants for the offence under Section 109 of the Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act? Held that - There is no force in the contention that the offences under Section 13(1)(e) cannot be abetted by another person. Referring to illustrations given in case they are apt examples of how the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act can be abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of prosecuting such offender is through the trial envisaged in the P.C. Act. For the aforesaid reasons we are unable to appreciate the contentions of the appellants that they are not liable to be proceeded against under the P.C. Act. Accordingly we dismiss these appeals.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of non-public servants to be prosecuted under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Jurisdiction of Special Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Interpretation of abetment in the context of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Non-Public Servants:
The appellants, who are kith and kin of former public servants, are being prosecuted for abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act). They contended that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) is unabettable as it pertains solely to the public servant's failure to account for disproportionate assets. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the P.C. Act does contemplate the abetment of offences specified under Section 13, and non-public servants can indeed be prosecuted for such abetment.

2. Jurisdiction of Special Judges:
Section 4 of the P.C. Act confers exclusive jurisdiction to Special Judges to try offences specified in Section 3(1). The court highlighted that the monosyllable "only" in Section 4(1) underscores the exclusivity of the Special Judges' jurisdiction. Clause (b) of Section 3(1) includes conspiracy and abetment of offences under the P.C. Act, thus non-public servants involved in conspiracy or abetment are also to be tried by Special Judges. This ensures that abettors and conspirators cannot be delinked from the delinquent public servants for the purpose of trial.

3. Interpretation of Abetment:
The court examined the definitions and scope of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, which includes instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aiding. The court provided illustrations to demonstrate how non-public servants could abet the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act:
- Instigation: A relative persuades a public servant to accept bribes, thus instigating the offence.
- Conspiracy: Individuals conspire with a public servant to amass wealth through bribery.
- Intentional Aiding: A friend agrees to hold the public servant's illicit wealth in his name.

The court concluded that these acts constitute abetment and that non-public servants can be prosecuted for such abetment under the P.C. Act.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming that non-public servants can be prosecuted for abetment under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, and that such prosecutions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Judges appointed under the P.C. Act. The court emphasized that the legislative intent and statutory provisions support the inclusion of abettors in the trial process to effectively combat corruption.