P. NALLAMMAL versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 09-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

P. NALLAMMAL 
v. 
ST A TE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
AUGUST 9, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Prevention of Corruption Act, I 988: 
Section I 3(/)(e)-0.lfence under-Held: Not unabettable-Hence, non-
public servant can also be tried along with a public servant. 
A 
B 
c 
Section 13(1)(e) Explanation-Wea/th-Possession of-Dispro-
portionate to known sources of income-Held: Known sources of income 
should be any lawful source-The receipt of such income should have been D 
intimated by the public servant in accordance with the law applicable to 
him. 
Section 13(/)(e)-Ojfence under-Ingredients of-Burden of proof-
Held: (i) Disproportionate to known sources of income and (ii) inability of 
public servant to account for it-Burden of proof on the first ingredient is E 
on the prosecution and on the second is on the public servant. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 136 and 141. 
SLP-Dismissa/ of-Effect-Held: Does not amount to upholding of the 
law propounded in the decision challenged 
F 
Practice and Procedure: 
Concession-On a legal proposition-Resiled from-Permissibility-
Held: A party can retract or resile from such a concession. 
Some of the former Ministers were prosecuted before a Special Court 
for the offence, inter alia, under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988. They were indicted on the premise that they were 
public servants during the relevant time and that each one had amassed 
wealth disproportionate to his/her known sources of income, for which he/ 
135 
G 
H 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A she was unable to account. But in all such cases some of their kith and kin 
were also being arraigned as- co-a9Ct1sed to face the said offence read with 
Section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860. 
The appellants-kith and kin of the former Ministers-filed petitions 
before the High Court challenging their prosecution, which were dismissed. 
B The Union of India was made a respondent before the High Court, which 
conceded, to the legal position espoused by the appellants. 
c 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the offence under 
Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act was unabettable by non-public servants and, 
therefore, the appellants could not be tried along with the public servants. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the High Court in 
an earlier case had held that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. 
Act could be abetted by a non-public servant and that this Court had dismissed. 
the Special Leave Petition challenging the aforesaid decision. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
encompasses the offences committed in conspiracy with others or by abetment 
/ 
of "any of the offences" punishable under the P.C. Act. If such conspiracy 
or abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the P.C. Act can be 
E tried "only" by the Special Judge, it is inconceivable that the a better or the 
conspirator can be declinded from the delinquent public servant for the 
purpose of trial of the offence. If a non-public servant is also a member of 
the criminal conspiracy for a public servants to commit any offence under 
the P.C. Act, or if such non-public servant has abetted any of the offences 
which the public servant commits, such non-public servant is also liable to 
F be tried along with the public servant before the court of a Special Judge 
having jurisdiction in the matter. [140-G-H; 141-A] 
1.2. It is true that Section 11 deals with a case of abetment of offences 
defined under Section 8 and Section 9, and it is also true that Section 12 
G specifically deals with the case of abetment of offences under Sections 7 and 
11. But that is no ground to hold that the P.C. Act does not contemplate 
abetment of any of the offences specified in Section 13 of the P.C. Act. 
[141-F) 
2. As per the Explanation to Section 13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act, the 
H "known sources of income" of the public servant. for the purpose of satisfying 
:... 
P. NALLAMMAL v. STATE REPRES. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
137 
·the court, should be" any lawful sources". Besides being the lawful source A 
the Explanation further enjoins that receipt of such income should have been 
intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of any law 
applicable to such public servant at the relevant time. So a public servant 
cannot now escape from the tentacles of Section 13
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.