9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the learned Special Judge erred in refusing to take cognizance against A-2 for abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Whether the evidence provided was sufficient to establish prima facie abetment by A-2. 3. Interpretation of abetment in the context of possession of disproportionate assets. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Cognizance Against A-2 The revision case was filed by the CBI challenging the order of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, which refused to take cognizance against A-2, the wife of A-1, an Income Tax Officer, under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge had taken cognizance against A-1 for possessing disproportionate assets but found no prima facie evidence against A-2 for abetment. Issue 2: Sufficiency of Evidence for Abetment The charge-sheet indicated that A-2, a housewife, abetted A-1 by aiding him to conceal ill-gotten wealth in her name and that of their children. The prosecution argued that allowing the property to be kept in her name constituted abetment. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in P. Nallammal v. State, which held that even private persons could abet an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Issue 3: Interpretation of Abetment The court examined Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment as instigating, engaging in conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission of an offense. The court noted that the very fact of the wealth being kept in A-2's name, with her knowledge, constituted prima facie proof of abetment. The court referenced the Supreme Court's illustrations in P. Nallammal's case, which demonstrated various scenarios of abetment, including a public servant asking a close friend to hold ill-gotten wealth in their name. The court also cited Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., which elaborated on the nature of abetment, emphasizing that intentional aiding and active complicity are essential elements. The court observed that possession of disproportionate assets is an offense, and allowing such assets to be kept in one's name amounts to facilitating the possession, thus constituting abetment. The court further referenced Ranganayaki v. State, which discussed the difficulty in proving the mental disposition of the accused and the importance of circumstantial evidence in establishing motive and abetment. The court concluded that the act of allowing the property to be kept in A-2's name, given the relationship between husband and wife, automatically amounted to abetment. Conclusion: The court held that the Special Judge erred in discharging A-2 from the accusation of abetment. The revision case was allowed, and the lower court was directed to register the case against A-1 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and take cognizance against A-2 for abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
|
