Specific allegations linking a spouse to disproportionate assets warrant trial on abetment despite an independent-income defence.

The petitioner, a government schoolteacher and the second wife of a WESCO Junior Accountant, was charged under Section 109 IPC for allegedly abetting her husband’s offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that her husband possessed disproportionate assets of ₹90,04,811, including five properties registered in her name.

After the Special Judge rejected her application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, she challenged that order in revision.

She maintained that her independent income and savings explained the properties

The petitioner had previously been granted liberty to pursue discharge before the appropriate forum

1. Whether the charge-sheet materials disclosed a prima facie case that the petitioner abetted her husband’s acquisition or possession of disproportionate assets, warranting refusal of discharge under Section 239 CrPC

2. Whether the petitioner’s asserted independent income and explanation for the properties could be considered at the discharge stage

Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act concerns a public servant’s possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income; under Section 13(2), such conduct is punishable.

A non-public servant may be tried for abetting an offence under the Act where the material supports abetment: P. Nallammal v. State, (1999) 6 SCC 559, and P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State, 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1091

Under Sections 107 and 109 IPC, abetment requires conduct amounting to instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; mere registration of property in a relative’s name, without material indicating abetment, is insufficient.

The court referred to Smt. Kumudini Padhy v. State of Odisha (Vig.), AIR Online 2019 ORI 153, and Smt. E. Swarnalata @ P. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), CRLMC No. 2660 of 2023, on that principle

At the charge stage, the court assesses whether the record discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion; it does not conduct a mini-trial or weigh the defence evidence

The court noted that the prosecution specifically alleged the petitioner had facilitated her husband’s acquisition and holding of assets, and identified five properties registered in her name that were included in the disproportionate-assets calculation

Although the petitioner asserted that her salary, GPF withdrawal, and savings independently accounted for the properties, the court treated that explanation as a defence whose correctness and evidentiary weight required assessment at trial, rather than determination in revision at the discharge stage

On the materials before it, the court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s refusal to discharge her

It dismissed the criminal revision and declined to interfere with the Special Judge’s order rejecting discharge