Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging the trial court’s refusal to discharge the petitioner from prosecution under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court affirmed that there existed sufficient material on record to justify the framing of charges against the petitioner for abetment of the accumulation of disproportionate assets by her husband, a public servant. It reiterated that income tax returns are not conclusive proof of lawful acquisition and observed that strong suspicion based on material evidence suffices at the charge-framing stage.
Facts
The petitioner was arrayed as an accused alongside her husband, a public servant, in a Vigilance case alleging possession of disproportionate assets worth ₹94,75,277 accumulated during the check period from 22 June 1993 to 5 November 2012. The Vigilance authorities conducted searches at the couple’s residential house, parental house, office, and business premises. It was alleged that the petitioner abetted the offence by holding or facilitating acquisition of properties and investments inconsistent with their lawful income. A chargesheet was filed in 2021, and upon receiving the same, the petitioner filed a discharge petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was rejected by the Special Judge, Vigilance. The present revision was filed challenging that rejection.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner, being a non-public servant, could be prosecuted for abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
- Whether the materials on record established a prima facie case against the petitioner to justify framing of charges?
- Whether filing of income tax returns and tax assessments by the petitioner discharges the presumption of abetment?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that she was wrongly implicated solely due to her relationship as the wife of the main accused. She claimed to have an independent source of income from private tuitions, dairy farming, and soft toy sales since 1992–1993 and had been regularly filing income tax returns since 2003. She contended that the assets in her name were from legitimate earnings, gifts received at marriage, and customary offerings, which were supported by documentary evidence. It was argued that there was no direct or overt act of abetment or conspiracy on her part, and that the charge sheet was based on conjecture and presumption, warranting her discharge.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State Vigilance opposed the discharge, contending that the petitioner actively facilitated concealment and accumulation of illicit wealth by allowing assets to be acquired or held in her name. Relying on the judgment in P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State (2025 LiveLaw SC 558), the counsel submitted that non-public servants could also be prosecuted for abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further citing State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha (AIR 2017 SC Supp 481), the State argued that income tax returns were not conclusive evidence of lawful acquisition. It was submitted that the charge sheet and materials indicated financial linkages and acquisition patterns inconsistent with the petitioner’s declared income, justifying trial.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the permissibility of prosecuting non-public servants under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 109 IPC. It reiterated settled law that abetment can occur through instigation, conspiracy, or facilitation, even when the abettor is not a public servant. The 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act also made all offences under the Act abettable. Relying on precedents, the Court clarified that at the discharge stage, a meticulous evaluation of evidence is unnecessary. A strong suspicion or prima facie inference of involvement is sufficient for proceeding to trial.
Precedent Analysis
- P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 558: Held that non-public servants can abet offences under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court provided illustrations showing that holding illicit wealth for a public servant may amount to abetment.
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha, AIR 2017 SC (SUPP) 481: Held that income tax records cannot conclusively establish lawful acquisition of assets and must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence.
- Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 260: Clarified that income tax returns are not conclusive and that even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges at the stage of discharge. Also held that tax assessments are evidence, not exculpatory proof.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the petitioner’s argument based on her income tax returns and claimed independent income could not be the sole basis for discharge. It observed that the charge sheet revealed disproportionate assets in her name, and her close association with the principal accused raised a strong suspicion of abetment. The Court relied on precedents affirming that income tax records are only pieces of evidence and not determinative of innocence at the pre-trial stage. It was further held that determining the veracity of income sources and the legality of asset acquisition was a matter for trial.
Conclusion
The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge petition. It held that the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case sufficient to proceed to trial. Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously, uninfluenced by the observations made in this revision.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the principle that discharge cannot be granted merely on the basis of income tax returns or denials of allegations when sufficient material exists to raise a strong suspicion. It underscores the legal position that non-public servants can be tried for abetment under anti-corruption laws and that questions of evidence and justification of income must be left to trial. The ruling strengthens prosecutorial authority in corruption cases involving family members and close associates of public servants.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can a non-public servant be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for abetment of disproportionate assets?
Yes, the Supreme Court has held that non-public servants can be prosecuted for abetment under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act if they assist in holding or concealing ill-gotten wealth.
2. Are income tax returns sufficient proof to avoid prosecution in corruption cases?
No, income tax returns are not conclusive proof of lawful income and cannot be the sole ground for discharge at the framing of charges stage.
3. What standard of proof is required to frame charges in corruption cases?
At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion based on material on record is sufficient to proceed to trial; a detailed evaluation of evidence is reserved for trial.
