( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against an order dated 12. 08. 2005 passed by Shri Shiv Mangal Pandey, Special judge CBI, Raipur in Special Criminal case No. 55/2004 whereby charges under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')were framed against petitioner No. 1 and under Section 13 (2), 13 (l) (e) of the Act read with Section 109 I. P. C. were framed against petitioner No. 2.

( 2 ) SHRI Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners has during arguments at the very outset submitted that in this revision he would confine the challenge to the impugned order dated 12. 08. 2005 only so far as it relates to framing of charge against the petitioner no. 2 and that he would not assail the charge under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (e) of the Act framed against the petitioner no. 1-Bharat Lal, by the Special Court.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts are that the respondent filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners in the Court of Special Judge cbi, Raipur (Special Criminal Case no. 55/2004) alleging that the petitioner no. 1 while functioning as Deputy General manager at Bhilai Steel Plant during the period 1991 to February 2002 committed criminal misconduct in as much as he was found in possession of disproportionate assets beyond the known sources of his income to the tune of Rs. 23,25,252/- through dubious means and for which he could not render any satisfactory explanation. It was also found during investigation that the petitioner no. 2, wife of the petitioner No. 1, abetted the commission of offence under the Act by the petitioner No. 1 by submitting false returns of income during the period 1994-95 to 2002-03 showing false income from Beauty Parlor, trading of sarees, tuition and income from interest on bank deposits. It was also found that a bogus will deed was got executed from ramdhani Sahu, father of petitioner No. l, on 24. 1. 2002 in favour of the petitioner no. 2 to explain the huge quantity of gold in the possession of the petitioners. The aforesaid stamp on which the said Will was got executed was sold by stamp Vendor Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma to United western Bank, M. G. Road, Raipur. One advocate Shri Ravi Shankar Singh had purchased the aforesaid stamp from sanjay Kumar Sharma on 21. 2. 2002 on which the aforesaid Will was drafted by ravi Shanker Singh and got executed on 24. 1. 2002. This was done to shield the petitioner No. l and to explain the huge quantity of gold ornaments in possession of the petitioners. During investigation, petitioner No. 2 could not furnish any Diploma or Certificate for Beauty Parlor course. She also could not furnish any details relating to sale and purchase of sarees or relating to income from interest or tuition fees. She also could not furnish any explanation or details about the interest on bank deposits. On this basis, the Special Judge CBI framed charges against the petitioners as aforesaid in paragraph 1.

( 4 ) SINCE the learned counsel for the petitioners did not assail the charge under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act framed against petitioner No. l in this Criminal Revision, the only question that requires consideration is whether the documents filed along with charge sheet established a prima facie case under Section 13 (2), 13 (l) (e) of the Act read with Section 109 I. P. C. against the petitioner no. 2.

( 5 ) SHRI Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even if the contention of the cbi was accepted that the Will deed dated 24. 1. 2002 was got executed to explain the possession of gold ornaments, it could not amount to abetment of an offence under section 13 (l) (e) of the Act since the execution of the Will deed dated 24. 1. 2002 was an act which was subsequent to the commission of offence, if any. He placed reliance on D. S. P. Chennai v. K. Inbasaqaran1 and Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A. P.