Abetment of disproportionate assets offence extends to intentional concealment of illicit wealth in another's name.

A person who intentionally aids a public servant in concealing disproportionate assets by holding them in her own name is liable for abetment of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court applied the settled meaning of abetment under the Indian Penal Code, including intentional aid and concealment, and held that assistance in amassing or hiding illicit wealth can attract liability under Section 13(1)(e). Concurrent findings showed the assets were acquired during the check period in the appellant's name and that she participated in concealing them; the subsequent remarriage of the co-accused did not affect liability because the relevant conduct had already occurred. Conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by keeping the public servant spouse's disproportionate assets in her name and thereby concealing the illicit wealth.

Analysis: Abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 includes instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid. The settled position is that an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be abetted by a person who assists the public servant in amassing or concealing disproportionate assets, including by holding such wealth in his or her own name. The record showed concurrent findings that the assets were acquired during the check period in the appellant's name and that she actively participated in concealing the disproportionate wealth. The subsequent remarriage of the co-accused did not dilute the appellant's liability, as the relevant conduct occurred when the relationship and participation in the offence were in existence. Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also reflects the legislative recognition that abetment of offences under the Act is punishable.

Conclusion: The appellant was validly convicted for abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who intentionally aids a public servant in concealing disproportionate assets by holding such assets in his or her own name is liable for abetment of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

---