INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kamal Shankar, Varun Lamba, Arjun Narang and Shivam Jain, AZB & Partners
of corruption to be sustained there must be credible evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratifica - tion. The Court noted that the investigation report did not find any material linking the appellant to corrupt practices. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Guja - rat High Court should have allowed the appellant’s discharge application, as the investigation report did not adequately consider the pre-charge evidence. The Supreme Court has time and again clearly set out the threshold for the invocation of the presumption against the accused under Section 20 of the PC Act, by applying a strict standard and reaffirming that the evidence must be thoroughly examined by the courts to determine the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the public official. Abetment of Offences Under the PC Act The PC Act was introduced to curb bribery and cor - ruption practices among “public servants”, who are defined under Section 2 (c) of the PC Act. However, the PC Act can also be extended to persons falling outside the definition of a “public servant”, through Section 12 of the PC Act. The provisions categorically provide for a punishment for the act of inducing or attempting to induce a pub - lic servant to accept an illegal gratification. Further, Section 13 (1) read with Section 13 (2) penalises pub - lic servants who, by corrupt or illegal means, obtain any pecuniary advantage. These provisions ensure that both the giver and the receiver of bribes are held accountable. The PC Act, through its provision for abetment, enlarg - es the scope of applicability of the penal provisions by including individuals who abet any offence under the PC Act. The PC Act recognises that corruption is a collective offence, involving both public servants and private individuals. Therefore, individuals who abet or conspire with public servants to commit corruption- related offences are made culpable through Section 12 of the PC Act. In P Shanthi Pugazhenthi v the State , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1091 ( P Shanti ), the Supreme Court dis - missed the appeal of the wife of a public servant, aris - ing out of an order of the Madras High Court – the
appellant therein was charged under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (2) and 13 (1)(e) of the PC Act, for abetment of her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets, which were pur - chased in her name. The Supreme Court in P Shanti clarified that private individuals who induce or assist public servants in committing corruption-related offences are liable under Section 12 of the PC Act. Further, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant therein was the wife of the “public servant” at the time of commission of the crime, and assisted the “public servant” in accu - mulation of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. This ruling expanded the scope of accountability, ensuring that both parties involved in corrupt transactions are prosecuted. It is settled that any person who persuades a public servant to take bribes, decides to raise money through bribes along with a public servant, and prompts such public servant to keep the wealth with them or keeps the amassed wealth of a public servant in their own name is guilty of committing the offence of abetment of an offence under Section 13 (1)(e) of the PC Act. Further, originally the PC Act only provided for abet - ment of an offence being punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 of the PC Act. Pursuant to the 2018 Amendment to the PC Act, the scope of Section 12 has been expanded to now cover abetment of any offence under the PC Act. In P Nallammal v the State , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1040 ( P Nallammal ), the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on the culpability of P Nallammal, the wife of a former minister in the state government of Tamil Nadu, for her alleged role in abetting her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets in her name, while he was holding public office as a public servant. The division bench of the Supreme Court in P Nallam- mal gave a split verdict on the point of whether mere registration of the disproportionate assets of the “pub - lic servant” in the wife’s name makes the wife liable for abetment under Section 12 of the PC Act. One judge upheld the appellant’s conviction, since the appellant had assets registered in her name and was unable to
158 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook