Cuttack, Feb. 1: Orissa High Court has ruled that individuals cannot be prosecuted for abetting a public servant in the acquisition of disproportionate assets merely because they are his or her relatives.

The court said: "For example, if the son of the public servant asks his father to purchase a motorcycle for him to attend his college and accordingly the motorcycle is purchased in the name of the son, he cannot be compelled to face trial as an accused, along with his father who was found to have acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income."

The court observed this yesterday while allowing one Pratima Behera's petition challenging the order of Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, refusing to discharge framing of charges against her in the disproportionate assets case registered against her husband Anil Kumar Sethi under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The single-judge bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo said: "Merely because some of the disproportionate assets stand in the name of non-public servants, without any element of abetment, they cannot be asked to face trial along with the public servants on the ground that they are the kith and kin of the public servants."

"Therefore, if there are specific materials that the petitioner being the wife of the public servant has abetted her husband in the acquisition of disproportionate assets, she can be prosecuted along with her husband in the disproportionate assets case," Justice Sahoo ruled.

Pratima's counsel senior advocate Manas Mohapatra contended that she, as the wife of the public servant, could not be prosecuted for abetment. Though FIR was lodged only against her husband, the vigilance police added her as an accused along with him while submitting charge sheet. Her name was added as an accused on the ground that she abetted her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets, Mohapatra said.

After taking note of it and examining the case history, Justice Sahoo held that "there is no clinching material that Pratima abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigated in the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by her husband".

For this reason, the March 5, 2016, order of Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, rejecting Pratima's application objecting to framing of chargesagainst her "is not sustainable in the eye of law", Justice Sahoo ruled.

In his order, Justice Sahoo, however, clarified that anything said or any observation made in his judgment "shall not influence the mind of the trial court" during trial of Pratima's husband Anil Kumar Sethi.

The state vigilance had registered the case against Sethi in November 2009 for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of around Rs 40.55 lakh, while he was serving as assistant engineer, rural works sub-division, Kakatpur in Puri district. Sethi had entered into service as stipendiary engineer in 1993 in the Odisha State Housing Board Corporation.