Even a Non-Public Servant Can Be Convicted for Abetting Possession of Disproportionate Assets: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Chennai Port Trust Official

“A person who assists a public servant in concealing disproportionate assets is guilty of abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act”, - Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of a former Chennai Port Trust official convicted of abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the appellant, although not the primary accused, had actively assisted her then-husband, a public servant, in amassing and concealing disproportionate assets, thereby attracting criminal liability.

The appellant, P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi, was working as an Assistant Superintendent in the Chennai Port Trust. Her husband, then a Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., was already under investigation for corruption. During a raid at their residence, numerous movable and immovable properties were discovered, held jointly or in the appellant’s name.
A fresh FIR was registered on December 31, 2009, alleging possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The chargesheet accused the couple of holding disproportionate assets amounting to ₹60.99 lakh, with ₹37.98 lakh conclusively determined as unaccounted by the trial court. While her husband was charged under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, the appellant was charged under Section 109 IPC for abetment of the same.

The primary issue before the Court was whether a person—here, the appellant—could be convicted for abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite not being the principal accused or a public servant in that context.

The Court reaffirmed settled law: “It is a well settled law that even a non-public servant can be convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.”
Drawing upon the precedent in P. Nallammal v. State [(1999) 6 SCC 559], the Bench clarified that abetment includes situations where a person assists, conceals, or facilitates a public servant in acquiring or hiding ill-gotten wealth:
“If a public servant tells A, a close friend of his, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery… and A obliges the public servant in doing so… If it is a proved position, A is guilty of abetment…”

The Court emphasized the three categories of abetment under Section 107 IPC—instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid—and applied them to the facts of the case: “There is no doubt that after such disproportionate wealth was amassed, the appellant has been actively involved in concealing such wealth by keeping assets in her name.”

The Court found the appellant's role consistent with the third category of abetment: “intentional aid” in concealing wealth. The Court rejected her argument that since she was no longer the wife of the main accused (due to his remarriage), she should not be held liable: “Even if we assume that she was not the wife at the time of commission of crime, then also it is immaterial since it is proven that she had allowed the co-accused to accumulate assets in her name…”
Further, the Court noted that the appellant was also a public servant during the relevant period, enhancing the seriousness of the offense.
“We would like to note that even the appellant was a public servant at the time of commission of the offence…”

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment were confirmed. The appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender within four weeks.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2025