At the stage of framing charges, the Court is not required to consider the defence evidence of the accused and can only arrive at a prima facie finding based on the material made available by the prosecution.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda , J.—Alleging possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, a case was registered by the respondent against petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 1) under Section 13(1) (e) r/w S. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short). On completion of investigation, the prosecution filed charge sheet against accused No. 1 for the said offences and against his wife, accused No. 2, i.e., the 1st petitioner herein, for the offence under Section 109 of IPC. After entering appearance, charge was framed on 16.9.2010 and the accused pleaded not guilty. However, on the same day, accused filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the accused filed Crl. R.P. No. 1437/2010. Said petition was allowed and the impugned order therein was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to hear the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., filed by the accused and to decide the same in accordance with law. Application having been taken up for consideration, learned Trial Judge passed an order of dismissal on 5.7.2012. The said order has been assailed in this Criminal Revision Petition. Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Sr. counsel arguing for the petitioners at the outset stated that the revision petition in respect of petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 1) need not be considered and he would face the trial. Restricting the present petition to Smt. Yeshodha S. (accused No. 2), Sri C.V. Nagesh contended as follows:

(a) The sale deed dated 7.12.2001 (D12) under which the 1st petitioner acquired an immovable property itself would make a mention of the consideration paid by her to Sri K.M. Durai Swamy Naidu (CW. 10). During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer (I.O.) has examined CW. 10, who has asserted that what has been paid by her towards sale consideration is one that is incorporated in the sale deed itself. However, some time later, the I.O. is said to have recorded the statement of CW. 10, according to which, he has stated that he has been paid a certain sum far in excess of the one i.e., mentioned in the deed and placing reliance on the subsequent statement of CW. 10 which would predict the statement made by him at the earliest point of time which also contradicts what has been stated in the registered document, the trial Judge has proceeded to order framing of charge which is nothing but improper sifting of materials brought on record of the case.

(b) The income tax returns filed by the petitioner No. 1 which was produced by the accused persons, consequent to their non-production by the I.O. along with the final report in the case, being unimpeachable and unquestionable documents, which indicate the source of acquisition of the properties owned and possessed by petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 2), the learned Trial Judge has erred in not adverting to the same and hence, there is an illegality committed.

(c) The 1st petitioner, as is evident from the materials brought on record of the case, had her own source of income for acquisition of properties which she has acquired and her explanation was not sought by the I.O., which fact has not been noticed by the learned Trial Judge.

(d) Materials relied upon by the accused i.e., the Income Tax returns of accused No. 2 which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt can be looked into by this Court, from which it is clear that accusation against her cannot stand and it would be travesty of justice, if accused No. 2 is relegated to trial and she is asked to prove her defence before the Trial Court.

(e) The essential ingredients constituting the commission of offences which has been made penal under Section 109 IPC by the 1st petitioner being lacking from the materials brought on record by the prosecution, no case of whatsoever nature has been made out against the 1st petitioner and hence, interference in the matter is warranted and accused No. 2