The court emphasized that at the stage of consideration on charge, it is not required to assess, evaluate, and weigh the prosecution evidence as it is done at the final stage. Once a prima facie case is made out, the court cannot delve into the merits of the case for framing of charges.

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner calls in question the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by learned Special Judge-03 (PC Act), New Delhi and order on charge dated 29.03.2014 for the offence under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 06.05.2005, on the basis of source information an FIR bearing RC No.3A/2005/CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi was registered against Mr. Badri Prasad Meena, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-13, Income Tax Department, New Delhi and Mr. R.D. Meena under Section 109 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act on the allegations, inter alia, that Mr. Badri Prasad Meena (accused No.1) working as Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi has amassed his assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.74,67,678/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs sixty seven thousand six hundred and seventy eight) in his name as well as in the name of his wife and close relatives during the period September 1980 to January, 2000 and he could not satisfactorily account for the same. It is also alleged that during the said period Mr. B.P. Meena (accused No.1) out of his ill gotten wealth acquired a large number of benami assets in the name of his younger brother Mr. R.D. Meena (accused No.2) and his wife Smt. Bhagwati Devi Meena (accused No.3). Mr. R.D. Meena did not have sufficient means to acquire the assets in his name or in the name of his wife prior to his becoming a Panchayat Samiti Pradhan in February, 2000. Most of the assets in the name of Mr. R.D. Meena and his wife were acquired by Mr. B.P. Meena with the help of some people in Mumbai, Delhi and Jaipur who came in contact with him because of his official position. Thereafter, searches were conducted at the official as well as residential premises of Mr. B.P. Meena. During investigation it was also revealed that accused No.1, Mr. B.P. Meena was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.58,74,273/- (Rupees Fifty eight lakhs seventy four thousand two hundred and seventy three) in his name and in the name of his family members.

3. During investigation it was revealed that Mr. R.K. Jain (petitioner) actively aided and abetted Mr. B.P. Meena in the acquisition of properties at D-75, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Devi Meena and Mr. Raghuvar Dayal Meena as well as property No.2/11, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi in the name of Mr. Raghuvar Dayal Meena. The petitioner Mr. R.K. Jain transferred the funds to the bank accounts of Mr. R.D. Meena (accused No.2) through his company M/s. South Delhi Apartment in order to aid Mr. B.P. Meena in falsely showing returning on loans created to finance, purchase/ acquisition of property at 2/11, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi. It was also revealed that Mr. Rajesh Hira Lal Shah actively aided and abetted Mr. B.P. Meena in acquisition of property at New Delhi in the name of Mr. R.D. Meena by accepting Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty thousand) in cash in 1997 from Mr. B.P. Meena and arranged for drafts in the name of Mr. R.D. Meena and falsely shown them as loans in his income tax returns. He also actively aided and abetted Mr. B.P. Meena in acquisition of properties at Rajgarh in the name of Mr. R.D. Meena and his wife Smt. Bhagwati Devi Meena by accepting Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) in cash in 1997 from Mr. B.P. Meena and arranged for drafts in the name of Mr. R.D. Meena.

4. The sanction for prosecution against accused No.1 Mr. B.P. Meena was obtained from the competent authority. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.

5. Vide order dated 21.03.2014 learned trial court found a prima facie case for the offence punishable un