LexP. SHANTHI PUGAZHENTHI versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPE/CBI/ACB/CHENNAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 372 : 2025 INSC 674 P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai (Criminal Appeal No. 2581 of 2025) 13 May 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence u/s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(2), 13(1)(e) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.109 – Appellant was held guilty of abetting her then husband (main accused) in acquiring disproportionate assets – Sustainability: Held: Admittedly, the appellant’s husband acquired assets (disproportionate to his income), during the check period, in appellant’s name – Appellant’s case falls either in the 2nd or 3rd illustration in the P. Nallammal case – After the disproportionate wealth was amassed, the appellant was actively involved in concealing such wealth by keeping assets in her name – Thus, the appellant is guilty of offence of abetment falling u/s.109, IPC r/w s.13(2) and 13(1)(e), 1988 Act – Appellant’s argument that she is no longer the wife of co-accused as he remarried, has no force because at the time of commission of offence, she was his wife – Appellant allowed the co-accused to accumulate assets in her name and thus, assisted him in accumulation of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income – Appellant was rightly convicted u/s.109 IPC r/w s.13(2) and13(1)(e), 1988 Act – Findings of both the courts below not interfered with. [Paras 14-16] Case Law Cited P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police [1999] Supp. 1 SCR 135 : (1999) 6 SCC 559 – relied on. * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 373 P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Public servant; Disproportionate assets; Abetting husband in acquiring disproportionate assets; Disproportionate wealth; Abetment of offence; Abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by non-public servant; Concealing disproportionate wealth; Chennai Port Trust; Assistant Superintendent; Divisional Manager; United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; Raids; Movable and immovable properties disproportionate to income; Property disproportionately purchased by husband in wife’s name. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2581 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 429 of 2013 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Saurabh Jain, Prayag Jain, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee. Advs. for the Respondent: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Arvind Kumar Sharma. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this Court, who was working as an Assistant Superintendent in the Chennai Port Trust assails the judgment and order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Madras (hereinafter ‘High Court’) which has sustained her conviction and sentence under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 374 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports ‘IPC’) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter ‘1988 Act’). The co-accused (husband of the appellant, at the time) was also convicted and sentenced by the same order under section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. 3. In June 2009, an FIR was registered against the appellant’s husband alleging that he had illegally demanded and received Rs. 3000 for handing over a cheque relating to a motor accident claim. While investigating the FIR, certain raids were conducted at the appellant’s husband’s house and on 31.12.2009 another FIR under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act was registered against the appellant’s husband, while he was serving as a public servant on the post of Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. When the search was conducted on the residential premise of the appellant’s husband, various incriminating documents relating to movable and immovable property in the name of the appellant and her husband were found. Primarily, it was alleged that during the check period between 1.09.2002 and 16.06.2009, the appellant’s husband had acquired movable and immovable properties which were
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.