IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Simply because of death of Government Servant pending prosecution, prosecution cannot be said to be handicapped in adducing evidence of accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income of public servant.
(2) Special Court has jurisdiction to try all P. C. Act offences and/or even non-P.C. Act offences allegedly committed by a person other than a public servant.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. In this criminal revision application, challenge is to the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special (ACB) Case No. 07/ 2011, whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the application made by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for their discharge in the case.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as follows:

Deceased-Yuvraj Kashinath Dahiwal was the husband of accused No. 1 and the father of accused No.2. In the complaint, the allegation was made against deceased Yuvraj, who was the Government Servant, that he accumulated the property of Rs.49,08,291/- (Rs. Fourty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One only) dis-proportionate to the known sources of his income. On receipt of the complaint, he was called upon to explain the same. His explanation was not found satisfactory and therefore, the crime bearing No. 3017 of 2005 came to be registered against him as well as the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’) and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.P.C.) at Sakkardara Police station, Nagpur. During the course of the investigation, the deceased public servant as well as accused Nos. 1 and 2 were called upon to explain the source of money for accumulation of the property which was found prima facie disproportionate to the known sources of income of the deceased Government Servant. Their explanation was not found satisfactory. The investigation revealed that the deceased Government Servant accumulated property worth Rs.49,08,291/- (Rs. Fourty Nine Lacs Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One only), which was disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The investigation further revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2, being wife and son of the deceased Government Servant, abetted the commission of the offence by the deceased public servant. Public servant Mr. Dahiwal died on 11.10.2010 before filing the chargesheet. However, by that time the major part of the investigation was over. After his death, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused Nos.1 and 2, in the Special Court designated under the P.C. Act, for the offences punishable under Section 109 of the I.P.C. read with Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act on 16.08.2011. Learned Judge took the cognizance of the offences against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for their discharge. It is their contention that they are not the public servant and therefore, Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act could not be attracted against them. The main accused who was the Government Servant died before filing the charge-sheet and therefore, the prosecution came to an end against him on his death. It is stated that therefore by invoking Section 109 of the I.P.C. the prosecution against them could not be continued. According to them, deceased Yuvraj Dahiwal was the principal accused and therefore, after his death accused Nos. 1 and 2 being the abettor could not be prosecuted. In the absence of the principal offender they would suffer prejudice inasmuch as the Government Servant was expected to explain the source of his income. According to them, there is no material in the charge-sheet to come to a conclusion that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 instigated deceased Yuvraj Dahiwal or engaged in conspiracy with him to commit crime. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have their independent source of income. They are income tax payee. They have explained the source of their income and also the source for purchase of the property. The investigation officer caused inordinate delay in filing the chargesheet. According to them, the material on record is sufficient to satisfy that the property in possession of the d