R R PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of CBI/SPE Dhanbad RC Case No. 13(A)/2005 -D including the order dated 14.2.2007, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2)/ 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner.
(2.) A first information report was lodged against Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, husband of the petitioner, for amassing huge property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 20,75,984/ -. However, when the matter was taken up for investigation, it was found that said Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh had acquired the properties/assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 1,41,47,820.89/ -. During that course, it was also found that this petitioner, wife of Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, abetted her husband to acquire assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
(3.) UPON charge -sheet being submitted when cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) /13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner, wife of Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, vide its order dated 14.2.2007, it was challenged before this Court. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that charge -sheet has been submitted against the petitioner on the premise that some amount said to have been acquired illegally by Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh, has been deposited in the account of this petitioner and also in the joint account standing in the name of this petitioner and her son or daughter but even if the said fact is taken to be true, that would not amount an abetment in terms of the provision as contained in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, as no allegation has been levelled against this petitioner that in spite of having knowledge that her husband has acquired ill gotten money, the petitioner allowed her husband to deposit or by taking the said amount, this petitioner did deposit in her account, rather simple allegation, which is there in the charge sheet is that some amount of ill gotten money was deposited in the account of this petitioner, which, in terms of any of the illustrations given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code or in terms of the illustration given in a case of P. Nallammal and Anr. Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, 1999 6 SCC 559, would never amount abetment and thereby, the impugned order is fit to be quashed.;