Can a Spouse Be Convicted for Abetment under the PC Act? Supreme Court Delivers a Split Verdict

Introduction

In the recent case of P. Nallammal v. State by the Inspector Police[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on whether the wife of a public servant can be convicted of abetment in the accumulation of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’). While both Judges on the Bench agreed on several aspects - including the legality of the attachment and the High Court’s administrative decision to rehear the matter, they diverged on the appellant’s conviction under s. 109 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) read with ss. 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act.

Brief Facts

• A criminal case was registered against A.M. Paramasivam (‘Accused no. 1’) and his wife, P. Nallammal (‘Appellant’). The Accused No. 1 was an elected member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Minister from 16.06.1991 to 09.05.1996, who was alleged to have acquired disproportionate assets in his own name, as well as in the name of the Appellant and their minor children.

• The Trial Court convicted Accused No. 1 under ss. 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant was convicted under s. 109 of IPC and ss. 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, an attachment order dated 03.01.2001 under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, was passed, wherein the disproportionate assets belonging to Accused No. 1 and the Appellant were attached.

• Being aggrieved by the conviction and attachment order, appeals were filed before the Madras High Court. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2023, dismissed the said appeals, thereby upholding both convictions. However, it reduced the quantum of disproportionate assets calculated by the Trial Court in the attachment order.

• During the pendency of the appeal proceedings, Accused No. 1 passed away. The Appellant and her children challenged the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

• The Prosecution argued that there was a huge difference between the assets held by the Appellant at the beginning and at the end of the check period, i.e. between 16.06.1991 and 09.05.1996, and that the Appellant had no independent income. It was therefore alleged that the Appellant abetted her husband, i.e. Accused No. 1, in acquiring the said assets in her own name and in the name of their minor children for whom she acted as natural guardian.

• The Appellant, on the other hand, argued that the value of the disproportionate assets was arbitrarily calculated, and that the immovable properties had been acquired prior to the check period and were traceable to legitimate sources of income. It was further contended that some of the assets were gifts from the Appellant’s father at the time of her marriage.

Held

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the issue of conviction of the Appellant; however, the bench unanimously held as follows:

• Both the Judges upheld the High Court’s administrative decision to rehear the matter, finding that the absence of a written 2013 judgment warranted such action.

• The Judges also unanimously upheld the attachment order, holding that even after adjusting for minor valuation errors, a substantial portion of the assets remained unaccounted for.

Divergence on Conviction of the Appellant (SLP (Crl) No. 2127/2024)

• Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia upheld the conviction of the Appellant, while Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah ordered the acquittal of the Appellant. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Registry to place the relevant papers of the appeal arising from SLP(Criminal) No. 2127/2024 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Order passed by Hon’ble Justice Dhulia (Conviction Order):

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the verdict delivered by Hon’ble Justice Dhulia held that the Appellant’s conduct, i.e., attending registrar offices, facilitating purchases, and allowing properties to be acquired in her name despite having no income, was sufficient to infer intentional aid, thereby attracting s. 109 IPC. It reaffirmed that s. 13(1)(e) of the PC Act reverses the burden of proof: once the prosecution proves that the accused has disproportionate assets, the accused must satisfactorily explain the source of those assets.

• It rejected the Appellant’s defence that the properties were acquired through stridhan or prior agricultural income, finding the evidence vague and unsubstantiated.

• It distinguished precedents relied upon by the Appellant:

i. In K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu[ii], the wife was acquitted due to the absence of evidence, not because active involvement was disproven.

ii. In State v. Uttamchand Bohra[iii], the accused had only custody of documents, unlike the active role played by the present Appellant.

• Finally, it concluded that the Appellant’s participation was not passive, and that her conduct, timing of transactions, and lack of legitimate income showed she consciously aided her husband’s offence.

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah (Acquittal Ordered):

• The Supreme Court, in the verdict delivered by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, held that the Appellant’s role did not satisfy the requirements of abetment under s. 107 IPC, as there was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

• It emphasized that criminal liability cannot be inferred from marital relationship or proximity alone, especially where circumstantial evidence fails to demonstrate knowledge of illegality.

• It found that name-lending alone, without knowledge of the corrupt source of funds, did not amount to abetment, and to hold otherwise would unjustifiably reverse the presumption of innocence.

• It reiterated that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof and observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the Appellant’s mens rea. It further noted that none of the prosecution witnesses or documents conclusively showed that the Appellant knew the properties were being purchased with illegal funds. Her conduct, though consistent with spousal association, did not rise to the level of criminal intent.

• Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, but did not disturb the attachment order, as the assets were not fully accounted for.

Our Analysis

The Supreme Court’s ruling, which resulted in a split verdict, has examined the application of anti-corruption laws to non-public servants. The Court’s split verdict, upholding conviction in one opinion and granting acquittal in another, draws a critical distinction between mere association and conscious abetment in cases involving disproportionate assets.

The concurring findings on procedural and attachment issues reaffirm institutional safeguards, while the divergence on conviction highlights the evidentiary rigour required to hold a relative liable under s. 109 of the IPC. Justice Dhulia’s reasoning prioritizes the pragmatic reading of circumstantial evidence, especially when wealth is laundered through close relatives. Justice Amanullah’s opinion, however, acts as a constitutional guardrail, ensuring criminal liability does not attach without demonstrable knowledge or intent.

For practitioners, this decision serves both as a caution against overreliance on familial proximity as proof and as a precedent reinforcing that non-public servants can be convicted under the PC Act, provided the prosecution meets the high threshold of evidence.

End Notes

[i] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1040.

[ii] (2001) 6 SCC 674.

[iii] (2022) 16 SCC 663.

Authored by Purvi Garg, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.