Order One Kumar Binod had filed a complaint, vide Complaint Case No.2 of 2008 before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi against Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka, former Ministers alleging therein that both of them have amassed properties disproportionate to their known source of income. The Special Judge on receiving the complaint sent it before the Vigilance Police Station for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 was registered. 2. On completion of investigation, Vigilance submitted charge-sheet against both of them. Thereupon this court passed an order in W.P.(PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 on 4.8.2008 directing the C.B.I. to take further investigation in the matter. The C.B.I. having registered the case under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 11/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as R.C. No. 4(A)/2010/AHD-R took up the matter for further investigation. 3. The C.B.I. having completed investigation submitted charge-sheet on 16.1.2012 against Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai and the petitioner Sushila Devi (wife of Hari Narayan Rai) alleging therein that Hari Narayan Rai had amassed properties including landed properties from ill-gotten money in the name of his wife, Smt. Sushila Devi and his brother Sanjay Kumar Rai who tried to justify their income coming from dairy being run by Sanjay Kumar Rai under the partnership of this petitioner but the inflated income shown by them could not be satisfactory explained. That apart, huge investments were made in the post office in the name of the petitioner and Sanjay Kumar Rai which were found to be deposited as securities on behalf of two construction companies floated by Hari Narayan Rai in the name of M/s Mahamaya Construction and M/s Maa Gauri Construction with the Executive Engineer of Rural Works Department and Rural Development Department. This petitioner has taken a plea before the authorities of the Enforcement Directorate that she took loan in the year 2008 from different persons but some of the persons in their statements made under Section 161 and also under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have disclosed that that Hari Narayan Rai had given them cash and took cheques of the equivalent amount from them and asked them to treat this transaction as loan. 4. 4. The court on filing of the chargesheet took cognizance of the office under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, vide its order dated 16.1.2012 which is under challenge. 5. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an income tax assessee regularly filing her return of income tax before the Income Tax Department since the year 2005-06 and had disclosed her income and asset before the Department and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against her that she is name lender of the properties acquired by her husband and that since the properties which had been acquired by her have been disclosed in the income tax return, the Income Tax authority has committed illegality by taking the income and assets as that of her husband, still the C.B.I. has relied upon assessment of the .income tax authority, through that can never be said to be final as order relating to assessment of the property is subject to appeal or revision. Since the investment, according to the case of the C.B.I. have been made by Hari Narayan Rai in the name of this petitioner and others, they are being branded as abettor but there has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioner had instigated her husband in generation of ill-gotten money and in absence of this fact, no case of abetment is made out against the petitioner. 6. In other words, it was submitted that one would be liable for an offence as an abettor in terms of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code when act abetted is committed in consequence of• the abetment; meaning thereby that abetment has to be preceded the commission of actual offence, i.e. to say that offence is committed in furtherance of abetment but no such case is there of the C.B.I. that the principal accused committed offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act inconsequence of the abetment made by the petitioners. 7. 7. It was further submitted that the entire case of the C.B.I. is based on the assessment order passed by the income tax authority but the assessment order is subject to appeal, revision or review and as such, same cannot be subject matter of the prosecution of the petitioners in absence of any independent finding of the C.B.I. 8. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 9. As against this, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that the petitioner Smt. Sushila Devi and other facilitated concealment of ill-gotten income of her husband by lending her name to properties acquired by him which were far beyond their legitimate income and as such, they are liable to be prosecuted alongwith the main culprit by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on the one hand, it is the stand of the C.B.I. that since the petitioner facilitated concealment of ill-gotten income of the main accused by lending her name over the properties acquired by him, she abetted main accused to acquire properties disproportionate to his income whereas the stand which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that even if the allegation for the sake of argument is accepted that the petitioner is the name lender of the properties acquired by the main accused Hari Narayan Rai, she cannot be said to have abetted the main culprit to have asset disproportionate to his income rather lending the name over the properties acquired by the main accused would be altogether different transaction. But this submission presently is not acceptable in view of Explanation-II to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which does stipulate that offence can be abetted either prior to its commission or at the time of commission of that act. Therefore, this issue required to be gone into at the stage of trial. 11. Further it be stated that it has been well established proposition that non-public servant can be tried for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with aid of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of P. Nallammal Vs. 11. Further it be stated that it has been well established proposition that non-public servant can be tried for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with aid of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of P. Nallammal Vs. State [2000(1) SLJ SC 320] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is true that Section 10 deals with the case of abetment of offences defined under Sections 8 and 9 and it is also true that Section 12 specifically deals with the case of abetment of offences under Sections 7 and 11. But that is no ground to hold that the Prevention of Corruption Act does not contemplate abetment of any of the offences specified in Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. Thus, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and hence, it never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.