Spouse-held disproportionate assets can amount to abetment where knowledge and consent show intentional aid at cognizance stage.

Allowing disproportionate assets to be kept in a spouse's name, with knowledge and consent, may constitute intentional aid and therefore abetment under Sections 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the cognizance stage, the record need only disclose prima facie material, and the charge-sheet allegation that the property was kept in the wife's name with her knowledge was sufficient to proceed. The refusal to take cognizance against the wife was therefore unsustainable, and proceedings were permitted to continue against both the public servant and the alleged abettor.

---

---

Issues: Whether the wife of a public servant can be treated as an abettor where disproportionate assets are alleged to have been kept in her name; and whether cognizance against her could be refused for want of prima facie material.

Analysis: Abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may arise by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and Section 109 makes the abettor punishable where the principal offence is committed in consequence of such abetment. In prosecutions relating to disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the decisive question is whether the material shows intentional facilitation of the prohibited possession. If the ill-gotten property is allowed to be kept in the name of the spouse, such conduct may constitute aiding by facilitation and may amount to abetment. At the stage of cognizance, the record need only disclose prima facie material, and the charge-sheet allegation that the property was kept in the wife's name with her knowledge was sufficient to proceed against her.

Conclusion: The refusal to take cognizance against the wife was unsustainable, and cognizance against her for abetment was directed to be taken.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the proceedings were allowed to continue against both the public servant and the alleged abettor.

Ratio Decidendi: Allowing disproportionate assets to be kept in the name of a spouse, with knowledge and consent, can amount to intentional aid and hence abetment under Sections 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

---