IMPORTANT POINT
Writ Court can not decide disputed question of facts u/s 482 of Cr.P. C.

ORDER (COMMON)

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.—These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.37 of 2013, pending on the file of XII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases at Chennai and quash the same.

2. For the sake of clarity, the petitioners are referred as, according to their ranks, as mentioned in the charge.

3. The petitioners are A2 and A1 / wife & husband. The grounds raised by them are common, hence, by way of a Common Order, both the petitions are taken up together for final disposal.

4. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(i) The 1st petitioner/A2 is the wife and the 2nd petitioner/A1 is the husband. A1 was working as an Appraiser in Air-Cargo Complex, Customs, Meenambakkam, Chennai. The petitioners’ assets for the check period 01.01.2005 to 30.09.2012 are as follows:

Sl. No.	Description	Amount Rs.
1.	Assets at the beginning of the check period Statement “A”	22,17,210.00
2.	Assets at the end of the check period Statement “B”	1,36,78,086.83
3.	Assets acquired during the check period (2-1)	1,14,60,876.83
4.	Expenditure during the check period Statement “C”	1,00,53,225.00
5.	Total resources possessed by the accused (3+4)	2,15,14,101.83
6.	Income during the check period Statement “D”	94,77,469.00
7.	Disproportionate Assets (5-6)	1,20,36,632.83
8.	DA percentage (7/6x100)	1.27

(ii) Based on reliable information, a search was conducted at the resident of A1, it came to light that A1 and his wife/A2, who is a house wife, are in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.1,20,36,632.83 disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period from January 2005 to September 2012, during his tenure in Customs, in the capacity of Appraiser, he could not explain satisfactorily. Hence, the period from 01.01.2005 to 27.09.2012 is taken as check period for the purpose of computation of income, expenditure and disproportionate assets.

(iii) A2 is a house wife and she has no independent income other than the salary income of A1. Further, A2 has lent Rs.63 lakhs to Shri K.V.V.Ravindra Chawdary of Hyderabad, for the purpose of investing the same, thereby, A2 abeted A1 in acquiring assets. She is an income tax assessee.

(iv) Thus, A1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and A2 has committed an offence punishable under Section 109 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Additional Special Court for CBI at Chennai, on 21.08.2013 and the same is taken on file as C.C.No.37/2013 and is under trial.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that A1 is the public servant and A2 is his wife. The main grievance of the accused is that though income details forms part of prosecution documents and also references are available in 161 Cr.P.C., statement, they have not taken into consideration. Likewise, double entries are made in expense column. The premium paid on the insurance policy. The premium for the entire period has been taken, failing to consider the premium made only during the check period. Likewise, assets, which are acquired prior to the check period forms part of expenses. In statement “B”, loan amount of Rs.36,20,000/- has been shown as given to LW.33 KVV Ravindranath Chowdary, by way of cash. Placing reliance on excel sheet, which is inadmissible, as per Section 34 of Evidence Act. The substantial amount of agricultural income earned by A2, through her inherited property, have not been taken into consideration. The income allowed and accepted by the Income Tax Department and the I.T. Returns filed much before registration of the case are not considered.

6. In statement ‘A’, S.No.10, Rs