( 1 ) THIS revision case is filed by the CBI against the order of the learned special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad in c. C. No. 31 of 2004 (R. C. No. 7 (A)/03), where under the learned Judge refused to take cognizance of the case against A-2 and has taken cognizance of the case against a-1 for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act (for short "the Act" ). ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent (A-1) is an Income Tax Officer and the second respondent (A-2) is his wife; that A-1 is found in possession of disproportionate assests to his known source of income and A-2 has abetted the same by allowing the illegally acquired property to be kept on her name and on the name of their children. ( 3 ) THE impugned order reads as follows : "perused the charge-sheet, Office Note and material available on record. I. O. failed to place any prima facie evidence against A-2 for alleged abetment. Hence cognizance is taken against A-1 only under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of P. C. Act. Issue summons to accused by 25-10-2004. " ( 4 ) AS far as the contention of the petitioner that the offence falls under Section 13 (1) (e) of Act is concerned, the learned senior Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the same and has conceded that it is a mistake. ( 5 ) THE important and hotly contested question is - whether A-2, wife of A-1 is liable as an abettor. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in p. Nallammal v. State, 1999 (2) ALD (Crl.) 420 (SC) = AIR 1999 SC 2556 , it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) could be abetted even by a private person; in this case A-2 wife of A-1 has abetted the offence as she has allowed the illegally acquired property by her husband, to be kept on her name by consenting for the same. ( 6 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that under no circumstances, in the present case, an offence under Section 109 IPC is constituted. ( 6 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that under no circumstances, in the present case, an offence under Section 109 IPC is constituted. ( 7 ) RELEVANT portion of the charge-sheet concerning the accusation against A-2 is as follows : "smt. D. Sridevi (A-2) is a house wife. She abetted the offence committed by A-1 by aiding A-1 to conceal the illgotten wealth in her name and in the name of her children and tried to explain the above investments are made from her source. Thus accused person A-1, has acquired assets and failad to satisfactorily account for the same and A-2 wife of A-1, abetted the offence committed by A-1. " thus A-1, Sri D. J. Prabhakar Anand, has committed offence punishable under section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of p. C. Act, 1988 and Smt. D. Sridevi (A-2) has committed the offence under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of P. C. Act, 1988. " ( 8 ) SECTION 107 IPC reads as follows "section 107. Abetment of a thing : A person abets the doing of a thing, who : first : Instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly : Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly : Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1 : A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing; explanation 2 : Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. ( 9 ) IN Paragraph-21 of judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in P. Nallammars case (supra) it was held that there is no force in the contention that the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) cannot be abetted by another person. ( 9 ) IN Paragraph-21 of judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in P. Nallammars case (supra) it was held that there is no force in the contention that the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) cannot be abetted by another person. Paragraph- 22 of the judgment, reads as follows : "shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations which, according to us, would amplify the cases of abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section 13 (1) (e) of the P. C. Act. The first illustration cited is this. If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted the offence by instigation. Next Illustration is this : four persons including the public servant decide to raise a bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names. If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty of abetment through conspiracy. The last illustration is this : if a public servant tells A, a close friend of him, that he has acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he requests A to keep the said wealth in A s name, and A obliges the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position a is guilty of abetment falling under the "thirdly" clause of Section 107 of the Penal code". ( 10 ) IN the case on hand A-2 is the wife of A-1 and A-1 kept the ill gotten property on the name of A-2. It is obvious that A-1 asked or informed A-2 that property is being kept on her name and she has consented for the same. As such she would be an abettor. In my opinion, the very fact of the wealth being kept on her name, obviously with her knowledge, is prima facie proof against her. It is obvious that A-1 asked or informed A-2 that property is being kept on her name and she has consented for the same. As such she would be an abettor. In my opinion, the very fact of the wealth being kept on her name, obviously with her knowledge, is prima facie proof against her. ( 11 ) AS per the charge-sheet, she abetted the offence committed by A-1, by aiding A-1 to conceal the ill-gotten wealth in her name and in the name of her children. Thus, allowing to keep the ill-gotten wealth or disproportionate assets kept in her name amounts to abetment. As per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Nallammars case (supra) one of the requirements is proved position (sic possession) with regard to any of the ingredients that might constitute abetment of section 13 (1) (e) of the Act. In this case there appears to be no statements of witnesses, which show that A-2 did any other act beyond allowing this disproportionate property to be kept on her name, itself, would amount to abetment. There is no dispute that the property was kept on A-2 s name. ( 12 ) IN Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A. P. , 2004 SCC (Crl.) 473, the Hon ble supreme Court held that : "the offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act of illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed inconsequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such-abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "act abetted" in section 109, means the specific offence abetted. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed inconsequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such-abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "act abetted" in section 109, means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence". ( 13 ) THUS, one of the ingredients is that the offence must have been committed in consequence of the abetment to attract section 107 IPC, punishable under section 109 IPC. In this case, there might be some distinction, as the acquisition of disproportionate assets is not committed in consequence of abetment. Here what has happened is first there was acquisition of property and then concealment or allowing to possess the same on the name of A-2, by A-2; as such the acquisition is not in consequence of the abetment, as the acquisition was initial act; but, here possession of the property is the offence and not mere acquisition; as such here the question is as to whether the acquisition is prior to abetment would not arise. ( 14 ) IN Ranganayaki v. State, 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 926 (SC) = (2004) 12 SCC 521 , the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that : "after all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailants". ( 15 ) THUS sometimes it may not be possible for the prosecution to translate the mental disposition of the accused into evidence and on account of that it cannot be said that the offence is not proved. In offences of this nature, where illgotten property is allowed to be kept on wife s name, the very fact that the property was found kept on the name of such person, itself, is prima facie evidence of abetment. In offences of this nature, where illgotten property is allowed to be kept on wife s name, the very fact that the property was found kept on the name of such person, itself, is prima facie evidence of abetment. In Ranganayaki case (supra), reference is made to another judgment of the Hon ble supreme Court in Alley v. State of UP, air 1955 SC 807 , where it is observed that: "that is true, and where there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty, but absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. " coming back to Ranganayaki case (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court further observed that "in some cases it may be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence, while in some other cases inferences from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. There may also be cases in which it is not possible to disinter the mental transcription of the accused, which would have impelled him to act. No proof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation. Sometimes it may appear that the motive established is a weak one. That by itself is insufficient to lead to an inference adverse to the prosecution. Absence of motive, even if it is accepted, does not come to the aid of the accused. These principles have to be tested on the background of factual scenario. " ( 16 ) THE Hon ble Supreme Court, made the above observation in the context of motive and proof of the same. I feel that this observation would apply with regard to abetment and proof of the same also to a great extent, particularly in cases of this nature, where abetment is more by facilitation. Paragraph 11 of the above judgment of the Hon ble supreme Court, extracted below, is highly relevant : "under Section 109 the abettor is liable to the same punishment which may be inflicted on the principal offender : (1) if the act of the latter is committed in consequence of the abetment, and (2) no express provision is made in IPC for punishment for such an abetment. This section lays down nothing more than that if IPC has not separately provided for the punishment of abetment as such then it is punishable with the punishment provided for the original offence. Law does not require instigation to be in a particular form or that it should only be in words. The instigation may be by conduct. Whether there was instigation or not is a question to be decided on the facts of each case. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetting was instigation and nothing else, so long as there was instigation and the offence has been committed or the offence would have been committed if the person committing the act had the same knowledge and intention as the abettor. The instigation must be with reference to the tiling that was done and not to the thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that a person can be guilty of abetment by instigation. Further the act abetted should be committed inconsequence of the abetment or in pursuance of the conspiracy as provided in the Explanation to Section 109. Under the Explanation an act or offence is said to be committed in pursuance of abetment if it is done inconsequence of (a) instigation, (b) conspiracy, or (c) with the aid constituting abetment. Instigation may be in any form and the extent of the influence which the instigation produced in the mind of the accused would vary and depend upon facts of each case. The offence of conspiracy created under Section 120-A is bare agreement to commit an offence. It has been made punishable under Section 120-B. The offence of abetment created under the second clause of Section 107 requires that there must be something more than mere conspiracy. There must be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy. That would be evident by Section 107 (Secondly), "engages. . . in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act of illegal omission taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy". The punishment for these two categories of crimes is also quite different. Section 109 IPC is concerned only with the punishment of abetment for which no express provision has been made in IPC. . . in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act of illegal omission taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy". The punishment for these two categories of crimes is also quite different. Section 109 IPC is concerned only with the punishment of abetment for which no express provision has been made in IPC. The charge under Section 109 should, therefore, be along with charge for murder which is the offence committed inconsequence of abetment. An offence of criminal conspiracy is, on the other hand, an independent offence. It is made punishable under Section 120-B for which a charge under Section 109 is unnecessary and inappropriate (See : Kehar Singh v. State of delhi Admn. , AIR 1988 SC 1883 .) Intentional aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment. " thus, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that law does not require instigation to be in any particular form or that it should only be in words. The instigation may be by conduct. Whether there was instigation or not is a question to be decided on the facts of the case. As held by the Hon ble supreme Court intentional aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment. Thus doing anything in order to facilitate commission of the act amount to aiding for doing that act. The offence under section 13 (e) of the Act is of possession of disproportionate assets. As such allowing possession of disproportionate assets on one s name would definitely amount to facilitating the possession and consequently amounts to abetment, as when possession of such assets is an offence, allowing to possess such assets on once name would automatically amount to abetment of possession. ( 17 ) IN the illustration referred to in nallammars case (supra), it was not illustrated that the acquisition shall be subsequent to the instigation or facilitation; but it was shown that acquired wealth being subsequently kept on the name or any person i. e. , subsequent acquisition that amounts to abetment. In the illustration, there is a reference for a request to be made to the person in whose name the property has to be kept and the request being accepted by that person. In the illustration, there is a reference for a request to be made to the person in whose name the property has to be kept and the request being accepted by that person. In the case of wife and husband, very fact of allowing the property to be kept on the name of wife would automatically amount to abetment. ( 18 ) IN all these circumstances, it is not a case where the second accused, who is arrayed as an abettor can be discharged initially. ( 19 ) IN the result, the revision case is allowed. The lower Court is directed to register the case against A-1 for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A2 cannot be discharged from the accusation of being abettor of the same and cognizance has to be taken against her for the same.