http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: P. NALLAMMAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1999

BENCH: K.T. Thomas, M.B. Shah.

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J.

       Leave granted.

   Some  of  the  former  Ministers   of  the  Tamil   Nadu Government  in  the Ministry headed by the  erstwhile  Chief Minister  Smt.   Jayalalitha  are  being  prosecuted  before certain  Special  Courts for the offence, inter alia,  under Section  13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988 (for  short  "the  P.C.  Act").  The former speaker  of  the Tamil  Nadu Legislative Assembly (when Smt.  Jayalalitha was the  Chief Minister) is also facing a similar charge.   They are  indicted on the premise that they were public  servants during  the  relevant  time and that each  one  has  amassed wealth  disproportionate to his/her known sources of income, for which he/she is unable to account.

   But  in  all such cases, some of their kith and kin  are also  being arraigned as co-accused to face the said offence read  with  Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for  short "the Penal Code").  Appellants herein are all those kith and kin  who  are  now  being proceeded  against  for  the  said offences  in conjunction with the public servant  concerned. They raised preliminary objections before the Special Courts on various grounds for pre-charge exoneration, but the Court repelled  all such objections.  They moved the High Court of Madras  against such orders, but a learned Single Judge  who heard  the  motions  together,   along  with  certain  other petitions  arising  from the same  prosecution  proceedings, dismissed  all the petitions by a common order, which is now being challenged in these appeals.

   Appellants  have restricted their contentions, in  these appeals,  to  the  question whether they are  liable  to  be prosecuted  along with public servants for the offence under Section  109 of the Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.  Act.  Shri K.K.  Venugopal, learned senior counsel arguing  for the appellants submitted his point broadly that the  offence  under  Section 13(1)(e) of the  P.C.   Act  is unabettable,  since the nub of the offence is the failure of the  public  servant to account for the excess wealth  which none else can possibly do.

   Respondent  - State of Tamil Nadu has produced a copy of the  decision  rendered  by a learned Single  Judge  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

Madras  High  Court dated 17-6-1988, in which the  identical question  was considered when it arose under Section 5(1) of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the  old P.C.   Act")  wherein  it  was held  that  "the  offence  of acquiring and being in possession of disproportionate assets can  be abetted by another including one who is not a public servant".   It  was pointed out by the respondent  that  the aforesaid  decision was challenged before this Court through a  special  leave petition and on 14-12-1988 this Court  has dismissed  the  said  petition.  Shri  K.K.   Venugopal  has rightly  contended  that  dismissal  of  the  special  leave petition  will not amount to upholding of the law propounded in  the  decision  challenged  through  that  special  leave petition.   The  aforesaid legal position seems to  be  well nigh settled.  [vide Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  vs.  State of Bihar {1986 (4) SCC 146}];  Union of India vs.  All India Services Pensioners Association {1988 (2) SCC 580};  Supreme Court  Employees  Welfare  Association vs.  Union  of  India {1989 (4) SCC 187].

   Shri  Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for  the respondent  -  State submitted that it would be a  dangerous proposition  that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of  the P.C.   Act  is unabettable because a non public servant  who actively  aids and facilitates the perpetration of the  said offence  would move at large with immunity.  Learned counsel pointed out a few illustrations to drive the point home that such offence is clearly abettable by others and the abettors cannot be insulated from the reach of law.

   Union  of India was made a respondent before the  Madras High  Court  and  one Under Secretary to the  Government  of India  had  filed a counter affidavit therein  on  1-12-1998 conceding  to the legal position espoused by the appellants. But  Shri V.R.  Reddy, learned senior counsel now  appearing for  the Union of India strongly supported the stand adopted by  the State of Tamil Nadu.  The volte-face of the Union of India  cannot be frowned at, for, it is open to the State or Union  of  India or even a private party to retrace or  even resile  from a concession once made in the court on a  legal proposition.   Firstly,  because the party concerned,  on  a reconsideration  of  the  proposition   could  comprehend  a different  construction as more appropriate.  Secondly,  the construction  of statutory provision cannot rest entirely on the  stand  adopted by any party in the lis.   Thirdly,  the parties  must be left free to aid the court in reaching  the correct  construction to be placed on a statutory provision. They   cannot  be  nailed  to  a  position  on   the   legal interpretation  which they adopted at a particular point  of time because saner thoughts can throw more light on the same subject at later stage.

   Before  dealing  with  the contention  advanced  by  the appellants  we may point out that Section 4 of the P.C.  Act confers  exclusive jurisdiction to Special Judges  appointed under the P.C.  Act to try the offences specified in Section 3(1)  of  the P.C.  Act.  To understand the  exclusivity  of such jurisdiction it is advantageous to extract Section 4(1) of the P.C.  Act as under: ..........L.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

         "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of           Criminal  Procedure,  1973 (2 of 1974), or in  any           other  law  for  the  time  being  in  force,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

         offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3           shall be tried by special Judges only." L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   The  placement  of the monosyllable "only" in  the  sub- section  is such that the very object of the sub-section can be  discerned  as  to  emphasize   the  exclusivity  of  the jurisdiction  of  the  Special Judges to  try  all  offences enveloped  in  Section  3(1).  That can be  further  noticed while reading that sub-section.  It is as follows:

..........L.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J           "The  Central  Government or the State  Government           may,  by  notification  in the  Official  Gazette,           appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary           for  such area or areas or for such case or  group           of  cases as may be specified in the  notification           to try the following offences, namely:-

         (a)  any  offence punishable under this Act;   and

         (b)  any  conspiracy to commit or any  attempt  to           commit  or  any  abetment of any of  the  offences           specified in clause(a)." L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Thus,  clause  (b)  of the sub-section  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 tried "only" by  the Special  Judge, it is inconceivable that the abettor or  the conspirator  can  be  delinked 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 servant 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 be tried along with  the  public servant  before  the  court  of   a  Special  Judge   having jurisdiction in the matter.

   Shri  K.K.  Venugopal, learned senior counsel  contended that P.C.  Act, being a special enactment has taken into its fold  specific cases of abetment of offences.  Vide Sections 10  and  12 of the P.C.  Act.  Those sections are  extracted below:

         "10.  Punishment for abetment by public servant of           offences  defined  in  section 8 or  9.-  Whoever,           being  a public servant, in respect of whom either           of  the offences defined in section 8 or section 9           is  committed,  abets the offence, whether or  not           that  offence is committed in consequence of  that           abetment,  shall  be punishable with  imprisonment           for a term which shall be not less than six months           but  which may extend to five years and shall also           be liable to fine."

         "12.   Punishment for abetment of offences defined           in  section  7 or 11.- Whoever abets  any  offence           punishable  under section 7 or section 11  whether           or not that offence is committed in consequence of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

         that   abetment,   shall    be   punishable   with           imprisonment  for  a term which shall be not  less           than six months but which may extend to five years           and shall also be liable to fine."

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   According  to the learned counsel since no other type of abetment is made specifically punishable under the P.C.  Act there  cannot  be  any  question  of  a  non-public  servant abetting  the  offence  under Section 13(1)(e) of  the  P.C. Act.

   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 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.  Learned counsel focussed on Section 13(1)(e) to  elaborate  that  by the very nature of that  offence  it pertains  entirely to the public servant concerned as  there is  no role for the co-accused for discharging the burden of proof.

   Section 13(1)(e) reads thus: ..........L.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

         "A public servant is said to commit the offence of           criminal  misconduct,- (e) if he or any person  on           his  behalf, is in possession or has, at any  time           during   the  period  of   his  office,  been   in           possession  for  which the public  servant  cannot           satisfactorily  account, of pecuniary resources or           property  disproportionate to his known sources of           income.   Explanation.-  For the purposes of  this           section,  ‘known  sources of income’ means  income           received  from any lawful source and such  receipt           has   been  intimated  in   accordance  with   the           provisions  of  any law, rules or orders  for  the           time being applicable to a public servant."

   It  may  be  remembered that this Court has held  in  M. Krishna  Reddy  v.  State Deputy Superintendent  of  Police, Hyderabad {1992 (4) SCC 45} thus:

         "An  analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act,  1947           which  corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the  new           Act  of  1988  shows  that  it  is  not  the  mere           acquisition   of  property   that  constitutes  an           offence  under the provisions of the Act but it is           the  failure  to satisfactorily account  for  such           possession that makes the possession objectionable           as offending the law."

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Thus,  the  two  postulates must  combine  together  for crystallization  into  the  offence, namely,  possession  of property  or resources disproportionate to the known sources of  income of public servant and the inability of the public servant  to  account for it.  Burden of proof regarding  the first  limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

public servant to prove the second limb.  So it is contended that  a  non-public servant has no role in the trial of  the said  offence and hence he cannot conceivably be tagged with the public servant for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the  P.C.  Act.

   Section  13 of the P.C.  Act is enacted as a  substitute for  Sections 161 to 165-A of the Penal Code which were part of  Chapter IX of that Code under the title "All offences by or  relating  to  public  servants".   Those  sections  were deleted  from  the  Penal   Code  contemporaneous  with  the enactment of Section 31 of the P.C.  Act (vide Section 31 of the P.C.  Act).  It is appropriate to point out here that in the  original old P.C.  Act there was no provision analogous to  Section 13(1)e), but on the recommendation of  Santhanam Committee  the said Act was amended in 1964 by incorporating Section  5(1)(e)  in  the old P.C.  Act.   Parliament  later proceeded  to  "consolidate  and amend the law  relating  to prevention  of  corruption" and in the Bill  introduced  for that purpose the following was declared as per the Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof: ..........L.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

         "The  prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1947,  was           amended  in  1964 based on the recommendations  of           the  Santhanam Committee.  There are provisions in           Chapter  IX of the Indian Penal Code to deal  with           public  servants and those who abet them by way of           the criminal misconduct, there are also provisions           in  the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to           enable  attachment of ill-gotten wealth.  The Bill           seeks  to  incorporate  all these  provision  with           modifications  so  as to make the provisions  more           effective  in  combating corruption  among  public           servants." L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Thus,  one  of  the  objects  of  the  new  Act  was  to incorporate  all the provisions to make them more effective. Section 165-A of the Penal Code read like this:

         "Punishment  for  abetment of offences defined  in           section  161  or section 165.- Whoever  abets  any           offence  punishable  under section 161 or  section           165,  whether or not that offence is committed  in           consequence  of  the abetment, shall  be  punished           with imprisonment of either description for a term           which  may extend to three years, or with fine, or           with both."

   Therefore,  the  legislative  intent  is  manifest  that abettors  of  all  the   different  offences  under  Section 13(1)(e)  of  the P.C.  Act should also be dealt with  along with  the  public  servant  in the same trial  held  by  the Special   Judge.

   Shri  K.K.  Venugopal endeavoured to establish that  the offence  under  Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.  Act is  to  be understood  as  an  offshoot  of  the  different  facets  of misconduct  of a public servant enumerated in clauses (a) to (d)  of the sub-section which a public servant might commit. According  to him, unless the ill-gotten wealth has a  nexus with  the sources contemplated in the preceding clauses  the public  servant  cannot be held guilty under clause  (e)  of Section  13(1).   Learned  senior   counsel  elaborated  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

contention  like  this:   If  a public servant  is  able  to account for the excess wealth by showing some clear sources, though not legally permissible, but not falling under any of the  preceding  clauses  of  the sub-section,  he  would  be discharging  the  burden cast on him.  He cited  an  example like this:

   If  the  public  servant satisfies the  court  that  the excess  wealth possessed by him is attributable to the dowry amount  which he received from the father-in-law of his son, the  public servant is not liable to be convicted under  the aforesaid clause.

   The  above  contention perhaps could have been  advanced before  the enactment of the P.C.  Act 1988 because  Section 5(1)(e)   of   the  old  P.C.    Act  did  not  contain   an "Explanation"  as Section 13(1)(e) now contains.  As per the Explanation  the  "known  sources of income" of  the  public servant,  for the purpose of satisfying the court, should be "any  lawful  source".  Besides being the lawful source  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(1)(e) of the  P.C.   Act by showing other legally forbidden  sources, albeit  such sources are outside the purview of clauses  (a) to (d) of the sub-section.

   There  is  no force in the contention that the  offences under  Section 13(1)(e) cannot be abetted by another person. "Abetment"  is  defined in Section 107 of the Penal Code  as under: ..........L.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

         "107.   Abetment  of a thing.- A person abets  the           doing of a thing, who-

         First.-  Instigates  any person to do that  thing;           or

         Secondly,-  Engages with one or more other  person           or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that           thing,  if an act or illegal omission takes  place           in  pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order  to           the   doing   of  that    thing;    or

         Thirdly.-  Intentionally  aids,  by   any  act  or           illegal omission, the doing of that thing." L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   For the "First" clause (i.e.  instigation) the following Explanation is added to the section:

         "Explanation   1.-  A  person   who,  by   willful           misrepresentation,  or by willful concealment of a           material  fact  which  he is  bound  to  disclose,           voluntarily  causes  or procures, or  attempts  to           cause  or procure, a thing to be done, is said  to           instigate the doing of that thing."

   For the "Thirdly" clause ( i.e.  intentionally aids) the following Explanation is added:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

         "Explanation  2.-  Whoever, either prior to or  at           the  time  of  the  commission  of  an  act,  does           anything  in order to facilitate the commission of           that  act, and thereby facilitates the  commission           thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

   Shri  Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations  which, according  to  us,  would  amplify the  cases  of  abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.  Act.

   The first illustration cited is this:

         If A, a close relative of the public servant tells           him  of how other public servants have become more           wealthy  by  receiving bribes and A persuades  the           public  servant to do the same in order to  become           rich  and the public servant acts accordingly.  If           it  is a proved position there cannot be any doubt           that A has abetted the offence by instigation.

         Next illustration is this: ..........L.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

         Four  persons including the public servant  decide           to  raise  a bulk amount through bribery  and  the           remaining  persons  prompt the public  servant  to           keep  such  money  in their names.  If this  is  a           proved  position  then  all the said  persons  are           guilty  of abetment through conspiracy.  The  last           illustration  is this:

         If  a  public servant tells A, a close  friend  of           him,  that  he  has acquired  considerable  wealth           through  bribery but he cannot keep them as he has           no  known source of income to account, he requests           A  to  keep  the said wealth in A’s  name,  and  A           obliges  the public servant in doing so.  If it is           a  proved position A is guilty of abetment falling           under  the "Thirdly" clause of Section 107 of  the           Penal Code.

   Such  illustrations are apt examples of how the  offence under  Section  13(1)(e) of the P.C.  Act can be abetted  by non-public  servants.   The  only mode of  prosecuting  such offender  is  through the trial envisaged in the P.C.   Act.

   For  the  aforesaid reasons we are unable to  appreciate the  contentions of the appellants that they are not  liable to be proceeded against under the P.C.  Act.  Accordingly we dismiss these appeals.