ORDER 1. 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, 120(B) 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 27.1.2012 against the named accused persons Anos Ekka and also against Menon Ekka @ Menon Ujjana Ekka (wife of Anos Ekka-petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.1680 of 2012) as well as Jaykant Bara, cousin of Smt. Memon Ekka as also against Ibrahim Ekka (petitioners no.1 and 2 in Cr.M.P.No.2206 of 2012) alleging therein that Anosh Ekka has acquired assets worth Rs.57.01 crore including the landed property and a Majestic Bungalow disproportionate to his known source of income. Anosh Ekka after becoming a Minister floated a construction company, namely, M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd to which Smt. Menon Ekka wife of Anosh Ekka and Sri Jaykant Bara, cousin of Smr. Menon Ekka were Directors. Anosh Ekka has acquired most of his assets either in his name or in the name of his wife, brother and even other relatives and associates. M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. got huge works order from the Rural Development Department which was under the control of Anosh Ekka and Rural Works Department which was under the control of other accused Hari Narayan Rai. The income declared by M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd does not match the assets found in his name. The income tax return and audit report of this company showed huge amount as trade liability. An effort had been made by the accused to adjust huge asset against this liability but the claim of liability was found to be bogus. The income declared by M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd does not match the assets found in his name. The income tax return and audit report of this company showed huge amount as trade liability. An effort had been made by the accused to adjust huge asset against this liability but the claim of liability was found to be bogus. During investigation it was found that Anosh Ekka had acquired land situated at Fatehpur Dehri, New Delhi and a house in the name of Dipak Lakra for which the money was transferred from the account of M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. N.S.Cs and K.V.Ps of substantial amount had been purchased in the name of the petitioner and others. That apart, huge investments were made by Anosh Ekka in the post office in the name of Smt. Memon Ekka and Jaykant Bara which had been deposited as security with the Executive Engineer of Rural Works Department and Rural Development Department on behalf of M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd has mentioned in its income tax return to have received huge amount as shareholders’ money. However, such claim has not been found acceptable in absence of documentation. Smt. Menon Ekka in her income tax return for the year 2007-08 had declared income of Rs.1,31,90,261/-which was abnormally high compared to the previous year income. Out of it, a sum of Rs.1,05,83, 761/-had been declared as income from other sources but such claim could not be substantiated from the documents. Thus, it has been alleged that Smt.Menon Ekka facilitated concealment of ill-gotten income of her husband by lending her name to properties acquired by him which were far beyond her legitimate income. 4. The court on filing of the charge sheet 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 petitioners of both the cases, vide its order dated 27.1.2012 which is under challenge. 5. 4. The court on filing of the charge sheet 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 petitioners of both the cases, vide its order dated 27.1.2012 which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the allegation that Anosh Ekka had made investments in the name of his wife and other relatives, the petitioners of both the cases are being prosecuted with the aid of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code by branding them as abettor but there has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioners 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 petitioners. 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 in consequence of the abetment made by the petitioners. 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, 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 Smt. Menon Ekka and other petitioners 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 along with the main culprit by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on one hand, it is the stand of the C.B.I that since the petitioners facilitated concealment of ill-gotten income of the main accused by lending their names over the properties acquired by him, they abetted main accused to acquire properties disproportionate to his income whereas the stand which has been taken on behalf of the petitioners that even if the allegation for the sake of argument is accepted that the petitioners are the named lenders of the properties acquired by the main accused Anos Ekka, they cannot be said to have abetted the main culprit to have asset disproportionate to his income rather lending the names of the properties acquired by the main accused would be altogether are 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 founded 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, both the applications are dismissed.