As per case facts, a former public servant (appellant) was convicted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court for abetting her husband (main accused, also a public ... servant) in acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during a check period. The husband had accumulated assets in the appellant's name. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenged the conviction, arguing that a non-public servant (the appellant) cannot be convicted for abetment of a public servant's offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that she should not be liable merely because the disproportionate assets were held in her name. The question arose whether a person who is not a public servant can be rightly convicted for abetment of the offense of possessing disproportionate assets by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 109 of IPC read with the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court relied on a precedent confirming that a non-public servant is liable for abetment of disproportionate assets if they intentionally aid or are part of a conspiracy. The act of the appellant in allowing her husband to acquire and keep disproportionate assets in her name squarely falls under the third clause of abetment in Section 107 IPC (intentionally aids), as it helps conceal the illegal wealth. The Court explicitly stated that it is a settled law that even a non-public servant can be convicted for abetment of this offense.