1. The Petitioner/A3 has projected the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 08.01.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.810 of 2012 in C.C.No.35 of 2012 passed by the Learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.

2. The Learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.810 of 2012 in C.C.No.35 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioner), on 08.01.2014, in paragraph 82, had observed the following;

“On the strength of the above said well settled legal position, there is no hindrance or hardship to come to a right conclusion that, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner to frame the charges on the basis of the charges levelled by the prosecution. At this stage, this Court is required to consider only the police report filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C. If there is sufficient grounds for pursuing that the petitioner had committed offence, it can be said that, the prima facie case has been made out against the accused and there are sufficient ingredients are made out to frame charges against the petitioner for the alleged offence. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the legal position stated above there is no good or no valid grounds to discharge the petitioner u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. and further, in paragraph 83, had come to a conclusion that the prima facie case was made out to frame charges against the Petitioner and Consequently, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner's Contentions:

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order passed in M.P.No.810 of 2012 in C.C.No.35 of 2012 passed by the Learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, is not sustainable either in law or on facts.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the trial Court had not taken into account, the judgments submitted to him at the time of arguments in a proper perspective and also, had not answered several legally sustainable questions of law relating to the main issues of the said discharge petition.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent/Prosecution in spite of having knowledge that there was an existing registered release deed even as per FIR and conveniently suppressed the fact and took into consideration only a draft release deed and attributed several allegations against the Petitioner based on a document against various

Principles of Law.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondent/Prosecution, while alleging that the Petitioner/A3 had no means in the charge sheet had categorically admitted at page 18 of the counter that the house rent received by the Petitioner/Accused comes to Rs.10.90 lakhs approximately as per the income tax returns at the beginning of the check period till the construction of the Marriage Hall.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to submit that the Respondent/Investigating Agency had not considered the source of funds of the petitioner as per the I.T. returns and the dismissal order passed in M.P.No.810 of 2012 in C.C.No.35 of 2012 also does not speak about the source and capacity of the Petitioner to construct the Marriage Hall as evidenced through various documents, which formed part of the documents filed and relied on by the Respondent.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the main grievance of the Petitioner was that though he had means and resources to construct a Marriage Hall and the same was explained to the Respondent as stated in detail at page 6, para 8 of the discharge petition, the Learned trial Judge had not considered the same and erroneously dismissed the discharge petition.

9. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Learned trial Judge had not even considered the source of income through which the Petitioner had availed loans and repaid the same as spoken to by LW25 to LW27 and LW44, which would