IMPORTANT POINT
At the discharge stage, mere suspicion is inadequate; sufficient material must exist to justify trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

1. The sole accused in C.C.No.11/2013 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks quashment of the said proceedings after dismissal of his discharge petition by the Special Court, as per Annexure V order, dated 28.01.2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused, who had worked as Chief Conservation Engineer, Archaeology Department, Director, Continuing Education, Director, VHSE, Thiruvananthapuram, as a public servant in between 01.01.2001 to 21.12.2009, possessed pecuniary resources worth Rs.46,14,918/-, out of which, pecuniary resources worth Rs.24,80,342/- was found disproportionate to his known source of income, for which, he could not satisfactorily account for. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in this matter, initially, there was an investigation and the same ended in finding “further action dropped” (FAD) report, since it was found during investigation that the assets in excess of the permissible limit was only 7.53%. But, at the instance of the prosecution, the Special Court ordered further investigation and based on which, the disproportionate asset, alleged to be held by the petitioner was calculated at 42.32%. The accused appeared before the Special Court on getting summons, based on the report showing wealth calculated at 42.32% and filed discharge petition. While so, the prosecution filed another petition for further investigation and the same culminated in the report, dated 30.03.2017 and thereby, the disproportionate asset in respect of the petitioner was found to be 38.72%. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, seeking further investigation in the matter, the petitioner filed Annexure VI petition and the same so far not acted upon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is anomaly in calculating the assets and if at all calculated, the percentage of the assets in excess of the permissible limits should have been 7.2% only, as per the calculation submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted further that, while considering the discharge petition, the trial court failed to consider the arguments tendered by the petitioner and therefore, the discharge plea would require re-consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of the Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) KLT OnLine 3022 (SC) to contend that, at the stage of framing charge, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial and a strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as could be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The learned counsel also placed decision of the Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 KLT OnLine 2015 (SC) wherein it has been held that, if a view gives rise to suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the Court concerned is empowered to discharge the accused. The decision of the Apex Court in Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 KHC 6839 also has been placed by the learned counsel with reference to paragraph No.18, where the Apex Court held as under:

“18. It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge the Cour