The High Court upheld the dismissal of the discharge petition, emphasizing that sufficient evidence warrants framing charges against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on disproportionate income and expenditure.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.C.B.

2. This Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1584 of 2024 in connection with Vigilance (Special) Case No.5 of 2023, arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2018 registered under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been registered and after the investigation the charge sheet has been filed wherein it has been stated that during the check period, Rs.25,25,847/-, whereas the total expenditure is said to be Rs.79,97,685.06 which shows that the difference between the income and the expenditure of Rs.54,71,838.06 and proportionate percentage is about 216.64% and thus, the petitioner has spent about 216.64% more than his income. He submits that this is without any basis in view of the fact that the petitioner herein has taken a loan amount of Rs.38,23,664/- and that has been further top-up by way of further taking a sum of Rs.10 lacs and in view of that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct and as such, the petitioner has filed the discharge petition and the learned court has dismissed the discharge petition. He submits that the Income Tax Return of the wife of the petitioner is also annexed and that has also not been considered and, on this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may kindly be discharged from the liability of the case.

4. On the other hand, Mrs. Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ACB opposed the prayer and submits that the FIR against the petitioner has been lodged after proper inquiry and report of informant wherein upon the order dated 11.12.2017 of the Additional Director General of Police, ACB an investigation was initiated and it was alleged that the petitioner being Clerk of Primary Teachers’ Education College, Bundu from January, 2010 to January, 2017 has received total salary of Rs.28,29,614/- and out of which, Rs.3,03,757/- was deducted from salary and net received payment was Rs.25,25,847/- . She further submits that the wife of the petitioner is a home-maker and petitioner has purchased a land of ten decimals worth Rs.8,79,000/- in the name of his wife Mrs Pratima Devi and further it has been found that a house has been constructed in 3000 sq.ft. where there are several shops as well as the living area and that amounts to an investment of Rs.38,25,000/- and the construction was found on the upper floor has begun in the year 2018 which is after the check period and the check period is said to be January, 2010 to January, 2017.

5. She further submits that the materials are there and in view of that the learned court has rightly rejected the discharge petition. She further elaborates her argument by submitting that this Court is not required to roam into to come to a conclusion whether such crime has been made out or not and that can be a subject matter of the trial and in that view of the matter, there is no illegality in the impugned order. She submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

6. It is an admitted position that on the inquiry report of the informant alleging therein that upon order (PE 16/17) dated 11.12.2017, the Additional Director General of Police, ACB, an investigation was initiated and it was alleged