Orissa High Court
Suprava Paul vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) .... ... on 16 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1388 of 2025
Suprava Paul .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. N. Moharana, ASC (Vigilance)
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2025
01. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused along with
her husband namely Suranjan Kumar Paul in Balasore Vigilance
P.S. Case No.30 of 2014 for the alleged commission of offences
under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act read with Section 109
of the I.P.C.
3. The petitioner has been implicated in the present case
under the aid of Section 107 of I.P.C. for the offence u/s 109 I.P.C.
on the allegation that she has abetted her husband to commit the
substantive crime. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
in the present case on 30.06.2017. The only allegation which
reveals from the charge-sheet is that the present petitioner has
abetted her husband for commission of offence. Except that there is
no evidence coming forth to substantiate the case. Relevant would
be to reproduce the part of the charge-sheet which discuss/
implicates the present petitioner:-
"From the above calculations the accused
Suranjan Kumar Paul is found in possession of
assets of worth Rs.1,22,07,160/-, expenditure of
Rs.27,03,884/- and income of Rs.44,52,913/- from
all known sources. From this the disproportionate
assets of the accused comes to Rs.1,09,58,131/-
which he could satisfactorily not account for. His
wife Smt. Suprava Paul abetted the commission of
the offence by assisting Sri Paul to acquire the
disproportionate assets. There is sufficient evidence
both oral and documentary against the accd Sri
Suranjan Kumar Paul, Sr. Accountant, office of the
DM, OSCSC Ltd., Mayurbhanj, Baripada and his
wife Smt. Suprava Paul to face prosecution u/s
13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act 1988/109 IPC. Sanction
of prosecution has been obtained from the Managing
Director, OSCSC Ltd., Bhubaneswar in respect of
accused Suranjan Paul. As his wife Smt. Suprava
Paul is a private person no sanction of prosecution
is required in respect of her.
As prima facie evidence U/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C.
Act 1988/109 found well established against accused
Sri Suranjan Kumar Paul, Sr. Accountant, office of
the DM, OSCSC Ltd., Mayurbhanj, Baripada and
his wife Smt. Suprava Paul, I am submitting this C.S.
vide Balasore Vigilance P.S. C.S. No.23 dt.
30.6.2017 U/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act 1988/109
IPC them to stand their trial in the court of law."
4. It is admitted by the Investigating Agency that the present
petitioner is not putting forth the specific defence of her own to
justify the disproportionate assets of her husband. She has stated
that she has no income. She has also filed an affidavit before the
Investigating Agency on 29.07.2016 inter alia stating as under:-
"3. That, I voluntarily state that I had no knowledge
about the sources of income of my husband (except the
fact that he is serving in the Civil Supply Corporation in
the office of the CSO, Baripada at present) and I had no
knowledge about the quantum of income or amount of
salary or any other sources of income of my husband as
he had never given any such informant to me at any point
of time. It is further stated that I have no knowledge about
the filling of any Income Tax Return by my husband
showing difference sources of income in my favour,
except putting signature in good faith in the I.T. Return
Form as per his direction, because of the fiduciary
relationship exists between us. However, the alleged
business in my name had been managed by my husband
and he was also filing Income Tax Return for the said
purpose in my name.
4. That, the immovable assets i.e., Plot Nos.821, 822 &
823 had been purchased by my husband in my name in
the year 1996. I had only put my signature as per the
instructions of my husband in the required
papers/documents in the good faith, being his wife.
Similarly, the deposits in Union Bank of India, fixed
deposits and KVP deposits in the Post Office in my name
have been made by my husband from his sources of
income, to which he can better explain. I have no
knowledge about the sources or funds from which he had
made such assets and deposits in my name. I have never
given any financial assistance or any sort of pecuniary
aid to my husband for the assets, deposits and
expenditures made in my name. Therefore, I am no way
liable for the same.
5. That, in view of the above clarifications, I am to stated
that I have neither intentionally aided, nor assisted, nor
omitted, nor acted, nor instigated my husband to acquire
the aforesaid assets/expenditures in my name. If I had put
my signature or anything done, the same are done
without any knowledge of illegality or evil intention,
rather the same are done in good faith because of our
fiduciary relationship exists between us. It is further
stated that if husband acquired some assets or made some
expenditures, as above, in the name of his wife or
children, the same cannot attribute any criminal liability
towards the said wife or children, unless the said wife or
children raise any independent defence in respect of
acquisition of said assets."
5. The Investigating Officer has not taken into consideration
the statement made by the petitioner by way of the affidavit and
went ahead and filed the charge-sheet on 30.06.2017 against the
petitioner under Section 109 of I.P.C.
6. Mr. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the Vigilance Department while objecting, submitted a written
instruction dated 10.04.2025 received from the department before
this Court. In the said written instruction, the Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance, Balasore Division, Balasore through Special P.P.
Vigilance, Baripada has inter alia stated as under:-
"In view of the affidavit, which is filed by the
petitioner Smt. Suprava Paul in DCRLMC No.10505 of
2025, does not attract the culpability of the petitioner
in the original case. However, the Hon‟able High
Court, Orissa may direct the trial Court, to treat this
affidavit as evidence during course of trial and the
petitioner shall not dispute the same in any manner in
future."
7. On the basis of the above admitted factual conspectus, Mr.
Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case
of the present petitioner is directly covered by the judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt. E. Swarnalata @ P. Swarnalata vrs. State
of Odisha (Vigilance) reported in 2024 (I) OLR-616. He has
emphasized paragraphs-5, 7, 8 & 9 of the said judgment, which
reads thus:-
"5. In the light of the above, if the allegations are weighed to
elucidate the role of the petitioner to ascertain as to whether
she has indeed „instigated‟ or „abetted‟ her husband to
commit the crime, no case as such is made out against the
petitioner from the allegation or material placed on record.
Usually, it is the natural course that an unemployed wife is
always dependent upon the will of her employed husband.
The petitioner is within the fiduciary relationship with her
husband. The principal accused is in a position and capacity
to dominate the will of the petitioner. Thus in the situation the
petitioner has no scope to deny the will of her husband to
participate in the purchasing of the movable or immovable
property. Mere participation with her husband cannot
ipsofacto prove guilt of the petitioner. From the statement of
the petitioner under Section161 Cr.P.C. it reveals that
although she owns the assets but she has not claimed that she
has independent income and she has also not attempted to
justify the acquisition of assets and shelve the Principal
accused. In absence of any defense put forth by her by
justifying the assets acquired by her and on the face of her
plain and simple statement that the properties are purchased
by her husband in her name per se will not attract the offence
of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 IPC. It‟s only
the principal accused who has to explain the source of
income from which the property has been acquired,
therefore, the onus to prove the known source solely rests on
the principal accused.
7. Its also elucidated from the record that the assets in
subject are bought and also sold during the check period.
However, the said immovable properties are factored into the
disproportionate assets of the principal accused. The
petitioner is not putting forth any defense, calming that she
has independently acquired the assets alleged to have been in
her name, the onus is on the main accused to prove the
source of the income from which the assets were acquired in
the name of his wife. But the prosecution is banking upon the
allegation of "Abetment" sans any material to prosecute the
petitioner. If the analogy of the prosecution is accepted to
sustain the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, then in
that event, every member of the family of the principal
accused in whose name any movable or immovable property
was/is purchased by the principal accused shall be liable to
be prosecuted under section 109 IPC.
8. In the case of P. Nallammal and Another vrs. State
Represented by Inspector of Police reported in (1999) 6 SCC
559 in Para No.15 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held
that:-
"15. Thus, the two postulates must combine
together for crystallization into the offence,
namely, possession of property or resources
disproportionate to the known sources of income
of public servant and the inability of the public
servant to account for it. Burden of proof
regarding the first limb is on the prosecution
whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove
the second limb. So it is contended that a
nonpublic servant has no role in the trial of the
said offence and hence he cannot conceivably be
tagged with the public servant for the offence
under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act."
Our own High Court while relying upon the Judgment of the
Hon‟ble Apex court in P. Nallammal (supra) in Smt. Kumudini
Padhy vrs. State of Odisha (Vig.) reported in AIR ONLINE 2019
ORI153 & (2019)2 OLR732 has held :
"7. It is not in dispute that in view of the ratio laid
down in the case of P. Nallammal -Vrs.- State reported
in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 559, if a non-public
servant is also a member of the criminal conspiracy for
a public servant to commit any offence under the 1988
Act, or if such non-public servant has abetted any of
the offences which the public servant commits, such
non-public servant is also liable to be tried along with
the public servant before the Court of a Special Judge
having jurisdiction in the matter. Merely because some
of the disproportionate assets stand in the name of a
non-public servant, without any element of abetment,
he cannot be asked to face the trial along with the
public servant on the ground that he is the kith and kin
of the public servant. However, if there are specific
materials against such non-public servant being a kith
and kin of the public servant to have abetted the public
servant in the acquisition of disproportionate assets, he
can be prosecuted along with the public servant in the
disproportionate assets case which would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. In the said
case, illustrations have been given as to how the
offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act can be
abetted by non-public servants."
9. Taking into consideration the stand taken by the opposite party
in the counter affidavit, the materials available on record, the
peculiar facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that
the role attributed to the petitioner does not attract the provisions
of Section-107 IPC. Therefore, the petition deserves merit."
8. I have taken into consideration the materials placed on
record, the charge-sheet and the documents form part of the charge-
sheet. In the light of the factual scenario, the judgment of this Court
in Smt. E. Swarnalata (supra) is analyzed. It is apparent on record
that the petitioner has very specifically averred in the affidavit that
she has no knowledge regarding source of the amassment of the
disproportionate assets by her husband and she has also not put
forth a specific defence herself to justify the disproportionate assets
acquired by her husband. It is her husband, who has to explain the
legitimate source of income from which he has acquired the
disproportionate assets. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be
prosecuted under the aid of Section 109 of I.P.C. Hence, the case of
the petitioner is directly covered by the ratio of the judgment of this
Court in Smt. E. Swarnalata (supra). Hence, the petition deserves
merit. This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the
merits of the case in so far as the principal accused namely Suranjan
Kumar Paul, who is the husband of the present petitioner is
concerned.
9. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 of 2014 corresponding to
V.G.R. Case No.13 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada and the consequential
proceeding arising therefrom qua the petitioner is quashed.
10. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Judge
Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 18-Apr-2025 14:34:56
