IMPORTANT POINT
Framing of charge – Even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable Court to frame charge against accused.

JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. In this Appeal by Special Leave, the appellant challenges the judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No.381 of 2016. The said Revision Petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging the order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, in T.R. Case No.43 of 2013 whereunder it rejected the application of the respondent under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) for discharge and the challenge against framing of charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) read with Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the PC Act”). As per the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2017, the High Court set aside the framing of charge under the aforementioned sections of the said enactments and discharged the respondent under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows: -

On 25.11.2019, FIR No.56/2009 came to be registered against Sh. Anil Kumar Sethi, the husband of the respondent, under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. In the course of the inquiry, it was found that he is a public servant working as Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Sub-Division, Kakatpur, District Puri and was in possession of disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 40,54,561/-. He was unable to account for such resources for the disproportionate income and therefore, found him liable to be prosecuted under the aforesaid sections of the PC Act. During the course of investigation, it was found that the said Anil Kumar Sethi entered in service as Stipendiary Engineer in the year 1993 in Orissa State Housing Board Corporation and worked there till March, 1997. Thereafter, he joined as Stipendiary Engineer in R.D. Department in March, 1997 and later became a regular Assistant Engineer from January, 1999. In the year 1996 he married the respondent. Though the respondent, the wife of the said Anil Kumar Sethi, claimed that she had been filing Income Tax Returns, they could not be found in the IT Department, though the Income Tax Authorities were able to furnish copies of the Income Tax Returns of Sri Anil Kumar Sethi. The disproportionate assets of the said Anil Kumar Sethi was found to be Rs.39,96,857.7/- as against his known source of income of Rs. 25,81,494/- during the check period from 03.09.1993 to 26.08.2009, which was calculated to be 155% of the total income. In a bid to obtain copies of the Income Tax Returns of the appellant, another attempt was allegedly made by the then Investigating Officer Sri Nirmal Chandra Mohanty and he personally visited the Income Tax Office at Bhubaneswar to obtain the same, but could not get them. The Income Tax Authorities could not trace them out. It was in the said circumstances that they were charge-sheeted under the sections specifically mentioned hereinbefore.

4. The respondent and her husband Sh. Anil Kumar Sethi, thereupon moved applications for discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C., before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore. As noted earlier, it is the dismissal of the said petition that led to the filing of the Criminal Revision before the High Court and ultimately leading to impugned judgment. Evidently, the Trial Court found that there is a potential prima facie case against the appellant and her husband and the same could not be interfered with at the nascent stage. The High Court, as per the impugned judgment, held that there is no clinching material to show that the appellant abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigation for the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. After allowing the Revision Petition qua the resp