A wife’s factual defence to abetment in a disproportionate-assets case must be tested at trial.

The petitioner’s husband, a public servant, was charged with possessing disproportionate assets under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, who operated a stone-crusher business and held assets and loans in her name, abetted him by helping explain or account for assets attributed to him; investigators also found that her husband had made repayments on certain loans taken by her.

The Special Judge found prima facie material that the husband possessed disproportionate assets of Rs. 96,84,980 and framed charges against the petitioner under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act.

The petitioner challenged the charge order in revision, relying on her business records and other documents to assert independent financial capacity and absence of abetment.

1. Whether the materials on record disclosed sufficient prima facie grounds to frame a charge against the petitioner for abetment under Section 109 IPC.

2. Whether the revisional court should interfere with the charge order because the Special Judge allegedly failed to consider the petitioner’s documentary material and defence of independent financial capacity.

Under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court at the charge stage considers the record and accompanying documents to determine whether there is ground for presuming that the accused committed an offence; the assessment is tentative and does not require a finding of certain guilt (Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, quoted at pp. 10–11).

Revisional jurisdiction over an order framing charge is limited: the High Court should exercise restraint and ordinarily interfere only where there is a legal error, perversity, or abuse of process (Amit Kapoor, as discussed at p. 10).

The court also referred to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, on the court’s task at the charge stage.

The alleged substantive offence against the petitioner was abetment under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court found that the Special Judge had considered the FIR, charge-sheet, and accompanying materials and had recorded a prima facie basis for proceeding against the petitioner.

The petitioner’s business income, loan records, and other documents formed part of a defence requiring factual assessment; the Court held that this defence could be tested at trial rather than determined through a detailed evaluation in revision.

It distinguished Smt. E. Swarnalata @ P. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) because, unlike in that case, the petitioner here had advanced an independent explanation for assets and transactions relevant to her husband’s alleged disproportionate assets.

Applying the restraint required in revision, the Court found no basis to interfere with the charge order.

It dismissed the criminal revision and left the petitioner at liberty to establish her defence by adducing evidence.