Punishment for abetment of offences

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. State Th. Cbi vs Parmeshwaran Subramani

   Supreme Court of India 11 Sep 2009 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which provides for punishment of abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11, is not listed in Section 19 of the Act. By virtue of this express omission, the legislature's intention is that previous sanction as required under Section 19 is not necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 12. Courts cannot, through interpretation, read Section 12 into the ambit of Section 19, as this would amount to rewriting the statute. When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the courts must apply literal interpretation and cannot add words or supply omissions except in cases of clear necessity found within the four corners of the statute itself.

   On this section: Punishment for abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11; court held that this section is NOT listed in Section 19, therefore no sanction required

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs State Represented By The Inspector Of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai

   Supreme Court of India 26 Apr 2018 Binding (SC) Reportable 2025 INSC 674

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A non-public servant, including a spouse, can be convicted for abetting an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by actively assisting a public servant in concealing illegally acquired disproportionate assets, including by allowing such assets to be registered in the abettor's name. The change in marital status of the abettor is immaterial if, at the time of commission of the offence, the abettor was married to the public servant and actively participated in concealing the illegal wealth.

   On this section: Provides that all offences under the PC Act are abettable and prescribes punishment for abetment. Court noted that even prior to this amendment, Section 13(1)(e) offences were abettable.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. R.c.sharma vs C.b.i.

   High Court 27 Jul 2010 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where the allegations in a complaint disclose only a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot investigate such offence without obtaining prior written permission from a competent Magistrate as mandated by Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This is a mandatory provision, and any investigation conducted in violation thereof is illegal and invalid. Consequently, all proceedings arising from such illegal investigation, including charges framed and trial conducted, must be quashed and the accused discharged. The nature of the offence must be determined from the facts available at the time of registration, and police cannot circumvent this requirement by initially registering an FIR under a cognizable offence when the facts disclose only a non-cognizable offence.

   On this section: Offence of public servant obtaining gratification - cited as basis for second FIR registration; court found this was misused to avoid Section 155 procedure

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.