IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26254 of 2008 Date of decision : November 25, 2009 Shashi Prabhakar ....Petitioner versus Central Bureau of Investigation ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Sandhu, Central Government Standing Counsel for CBI-respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Shashi Prabhakar has filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. RCCH-G2006-A007 dated 17.2.2006 under sections 109 IPC read with section 13(1) (e) and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act), Police Station CBI, SPE CHG. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is wife of Varinder Prabhakar who was Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise. He was found to possess assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs 1,06,26,937/-. The petitioner is alleged to have abetted the commission of Criminal Misc. No. M-26254 of 2008 -2- offence under section 13(1) (e) of the Act, which offence was committed by her husband who was a public servant. The petitioner herself was also maintaining D-mat accounts and had purchased shares. Some immovable property also stands in her name in addition to some fixed deposit receipts. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that while abetment of substantive offence under sections 8 and 9 of the Act has been made punishable under section 10 of the Act and similarly abetment of substantive offence under sections 7 and 11 of the Act has been made punishable by section 12 of the Act, there is no corresponding provision in the Act making abetment of substantive offence under section 13 of the Act to be punishable. It was, accordingly, contended that the abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Act allegedly committed by the petitioner's husband is not an offence. It was also contended that the petitioner's husband had committed the alleged offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Act by acquiring money disproportionate to his known source of income and therefore, subsequent purchase of property (moveable or immovable) by or in the name of the petitioner would not amount to abetment of offence committed by the husband of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI contended that abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Act is punishable with the aid of section 109 IPC. It was also contended that if the petitioner who is wife of the concerned public servant, persuaded the public servant to become more wealthy or if the petitioner asked the public servant to keep bribe money with her or in her name or if the petitioner kept the wealth of Criminal Misc. No. M-26254 of 2008 -3- the public servant, it would amount to abetment of the offence, notwithstanding that the petitioner was not public servant. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the CBI has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Nallammal vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, 1999 (3) RCR (Criminal) 676. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Parmeshwaran Subramani, 2009(242) E.L.T. 162 (SC), contended that court cannot add anything to the plain language of the statute. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Judgment in the case of Parmeshwaran Subramani (supra) has no applicability to the instant case inasmuch as it related to necessity of sanction under section 19 of the Act for prosecution of an accused under section 12 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act does not prescribe the necessity of sanction for offence under section 12 of the Act. In this context, it was held in the aforesaid judgment that the court cannot add anything to the language of section 19 of the Act so as to hold the necessity of sanction under section 19 of the Act for prosecution of an accused under section 12 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on judgment of Apex Court in case M. Krishna Reddy vs State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, AIR 1993 SC 313. However, this judgment relates to ingredients of offence under section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988. Criminal Misc. No. M-26254 of 2008 -4- Ingredients of the offence under section 13(1)(e) are not in issue in the instant case. The question in the instant case is whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for abetment of the said offence. For this purpose, this judgment in the case of M. Krishna Reddy (supra) has no applicability at all. On the other hand, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Nallammal (supra) is directly applicable. It has been categorically laid down in this judgment that abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Act is an offence punishable under section 109 IPC. The petitioner held assets in her name. The said assets were allegedly acquired from the ill gotten money of her husband. Consequently, this act if proved, would be punishable as an abetment of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Act in view of illustrations mentioned in the judgment of P.Nallammal (supra). In view of said judgment, both contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be negatived and rejected because no judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 25, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'