Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – Instant Petition has been filed for quashing order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XXIV, Patna, in Special Case No. 11 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S Case No. 26/2016 by which the discharge petition dated 30.04.2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the offences under Section 13 (2) read with Section 1 (e) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been rejected.

2. Facts giving rise to this case is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Food and Consumer Protection Department, Patna. At the time of institution of FIR, the petitioner was posted as Marketing Officer at Lalganj, Vaishali. However, he retired from service in February, 2017. FIR was instituted on 10.03.2016 considering the check period in between 1992 to 2012. As per the FIR, the total assets in terms of amount comes to Rs.1,81,86,267/-. Further, according to the prosecution, Total Income (Approximate) of the petitioner during the check period was Rs.94,34,000/-. Hence, as per the prosecution Rs. 87, 52,267/- (Rs. 1,81,86,267 - Rs.94,34,000/-) becomes excess, which is disproportionate to the income of Bhola Giri. It is alleged in the FIR that after institution of the FIR, the Police investigated the case and submitted Charge Sheet on 25.12.2018 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Petitioner. On perusal of the Charge Sheet, it transpires that the total income of the Petitioner has been derived as Rs.3,79,20,532/-, whereas total expenditure of the Petitioner has been assessed as Rs.4,66,29,645/- and accordingly the excess income being disproportionate has been computed as Rs.87,09,113/-. It is stated that the check period in the charge sheet has been taken from 06.01.1992 to 11.03.2016.

3. While controverting the allegations, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is stated that while computing the income of the Petitioner, the Investigating Officer erroneously left out the income from Agriculture prior to the year 2007, which was already computed by the earlier Investigating Officer as Rs.9,45,567/- which finds mention in paragraph no.150 of the Case Diary wherein a detailed Flow- Chart showing the Income & Expenditure of the Petitioner has been prepared. The Investigating officer, while submitting charge sheet, has only included Rs.13,47,450/- of the period 2005-06 to 2015-16 in the income of the petitioner but has erroneously left his earlier income from agriculture which is about Rs.9.45,567/-. The earlier computed income from Agriculture upto 2006 was Rs.9,45,567/-. If this income is added with the total income of Rs.3,79,20,532/- it would be Rs.3,88,66,099/-(Rs.9,45,567+ Rs.3,79,20,532).

4. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has also erroneously taken into account the expenditure of household items as Rs.9,40,700/- and also the expenditure of ornaments as Rs.30,54,962/-. There was no occasion to include the cost of clothes, furniture etc. of the household items. In the Indian culture, furniture and many household items are given as gift at the time of marriage and as far as the clothes are concerned, such expenditure cannot be accounted, as, such items are purchased during long tenure and already in regard to it Rs. 15,43,054/ has been taken into account as unaccounted expenditure.

5. It is next submitted that as far as the expenditure of ornaments is concerned, the total ornaments permissible as per the Income Tax Commissioner's Press Release dated 01.12.2016, limit for gold jewelry not to be seized is 500 grams for married lady, 250 grams for unmarried lady and 100 grams. for male members. There are two children of Petitioner, one being daughter and the other son. Hence the total limit is 500 grams for Sandhya Giri (wife), 250 grams for Ms. Arya Giri (daughter) and 100 grams each for Bhola Giri (Petition