Abetment of disproportionate assets offences can extend to non-public servants who aid concealment, acquisition, or holding of assets.

An offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is capable of abetment under Section 109 IPC, because abetment may be made out by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The statutory scheme gives the Special Judge exclusive jurisdiction not only over the principal offence but also over conspiracy to commit and abetment of that offence, so a non-public servant who facilitates concealment, holding or acquisition of disproportionate assets can be prosecuted and tried with the public servant.

---

---

Issues: Whether a non-public servant can be prosecuted for abetment of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and tried together with the public servant before the Special Judge.

Analysis: Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Special Judge not only for offences punishable under the Act but also for any conspiracy to commit or abetment of those offences. The offence under Section 13(1)(e) is not confined to the public servant's personal act of possession alone but extends to possession of disproportionate assets for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. Applying the definition of abetment in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court held that such an offence may be abetted by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The structure of the Act, including the legislative scheme replacing earlier corruption provisions and the illustrations considered by the Court, showed that non-public servants who facilitate concealment, holding, or acquisition of disproportionate assets can fall within the scope of abetment.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is abettable, and a non-public servant can be prosecuted and tried along with the public servant for such abetment.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is capable of being abetted by a non-public servant through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and such abettor is triable by the Special Judge having jurisdiction over the principal offence.

---