Skip to content

ADVOCATETANMOY LAW LIBRARY

Research & Library Database

Primary Menu
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Countries198
    • National Constitutions: History, Purpose, and Key Aspects
  • Judgment
  • Book
  • Legal Brief
    • Legal Eagal
  • LearnToday
  • HLJ
    • Supreme Court Case Notes
    • Daily Digest
  • Sarvarthapedia
    • Sarvarthapedia (Core Areas)
    • Systemic-and-systematic
    • Volume One
04/04/2026
  • Law

Private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act 1988 committed by the public servant

advtanmoy 27/05/2018 2 minutes read

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram

Supreme Court  in the case of State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha &
Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos.300 – 303 of 2017], wherein charges were framed against
A1 – former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and the co-accused viz. A2,
A3 and A4 (respondents), for commission of alleged offences punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and further under Section 120-B and Section 109 of IPC, it was held that A1 to A4
had “entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, A1 who was a public
servant at the relevant time had come into possession of assets disproportionate to
the known sources of her income during the check period and had got the same
dispersed in the names of A2 to A4 and the firms & companies involved to hold
these on her behalf with a masked front.” Furthermore, it was held that “the charge
of abetment laid against A2 to A4 in the commission of the offence by A1 also
stands proved.”
It was held that as the sole public servant had died being A1 in this matter, and
appeals against her had abated, even then A2 to A4 “were liable to be convicted and
sentenced in the manner as has been held by the Trial Judge.” It was held that
“private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have
abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act
committed by the public servant” and furthermore, the reasoning given by the Trial
Court in respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment was correct “in the face of the
overwhelming evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and
conspiracy by A2 to A4 in the commission of the above offences under Section
13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.” Having regard to the fact that the charge framed against
A2 to A4 was proved, the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the
Trial Court was restored in full.[14th February, 2017]

Post navigation

Previous: A trial Judge has immense responsibility to record the evidence in the prescribed manner in Section 309 of the CrPC
Next: The Advocate appellant could not be treated as gross negligent but was only one of negligence.
Arrest
Sarvarthapedia

Latin Maxims in Criminal Law: Meaning, Usage, and Courtroom Application

Sarvarthapedia
Sarvarthapedia

Research Methodology and Investigation: Concepts, Frameworks, and Emerging Trends

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

Origin of Central Banking in India: From Hastings to RBI and the History of Preparatory Years (1773–1934)

Howrah District Environment Plan: Waste Management, Water Quality & Wetland Conservation

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections (1-358), Punishments, and Legal Framework

Bengali Food Culture: History, Traditions, and Class Influences

West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970: Fees, Schedules, and Procedures

WB Land Reforms Tribunal Act 1997: History, Features, Provisions, Structure, Powers and Functions

Civil Procedure Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (1976)

Knowledge Management in the Modern Era: From History to Digital Transformation

  • Sarvarthapedia

  • Delhi Law Digest

  • Howrah Law Journal

  • Amit Arya vs Kamlesh Kumari: Doctrine of merger
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)
  • Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184)
  • Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA): Indian Rules for Evidence
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
  • The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest
  • U.S. Supreme Court Orders
  • U.k. Supreme Court Orders
Sarvarthapedia, Law and Legal Materials

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

Indian Government

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Sarvarthapedia

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Education

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

2026 © Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • About
  • Global Index
  • Judicial Examinations
  • Indian Statutes
  • Glossary
  • Legal Eagle
  • Subject Guide
  • Journal
  • SCCN
  • Constitutions
  • Legal Brief (SC)
  • MCQs (Indian Laws)
  • Sarvarthapedia (Articles)
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs
  • Library Updates