Invoking the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the Criminal Proceedings pending against him in the criminal case in C.C. No.30 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Chennai.

2. Heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. M.C. Govindan, learned Counsel who is on record for the petitioner and Mr. E. Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (V & AC) appearing for the State.

3. The petitioner has been facing the charges under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in the criminal case in C.C. No. 30 of 2013.

4. He was appointed as Surveyor on 07.01.1980 and subsequently promoted to the rank of Draughtsman Grade-III and as Assistant Director/Member Secretary (In-charge Officer), in Tirupur Local Authority.

5. It may be relevant to note here that the petitioner was due to retire from service on 28.02.2017. However, prior to his retirement the Government had passed an Order in G.O. 3(D) No.45 dated 24.02.2017 and placed him under suspension from service on the ground of pendency of the above said criminal case in C.C.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Chennai.

6. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner was in possession of properties and pecuniary resources to the value of Rs.37,07,703/- as described in Statement No.2 annexed with the charge. The check period is between 01.01.2001 and 31.08.2008 and during this period it is alleged that he had acquired quantum of assets to the value of Rs.30,18,665/- as shown in Statement No.5.

7. During the check period the petitioner had the total income from known sources of income to the extent of Rs.17,85,781/- as shown in Statement No.3. The expenditure incurred by the petitioner for himself and for his family members has been worked out at Rs.14,55,173/- as shown in Statement No.4. In accordance with the case of the prosecution, the petitioner had a resultant savings of Rs.3,30,608/- at the end of the check period as shown in Statement No.6. Thus, the prosecution alleges that as on 31.08.2008, he was found to have acquired and possessed with the properties and pecuniary resources in the name of his daughter and wife to the extent of Rs.26,88,057/- which is disproportionate to his known sources of income and therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to Vigilance and Anti Corruption had laid a final report against the petitioner on the file of the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Chennai saying that he had committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

8. Mr. Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel while advancing his arguments has adverted to that the Investigation Officer had taken note of the value of the construction of the house erroneously and in fact a part of the house was constructed after the check period viz. July 2009. The Officer who had valued the house, had estimated the value approximately to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- and hence this amount of Rs.5,00,000/- ought to have been deleted from the total value of Rs.36,00,000/- and on account of the failure of the Investigation Officer to do this simple calculation, the petitioner need not undergo the ordeal of trial. The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to Page 35 of the typed set of papers wherein the Statement No.1 is available. The Statement No.1 contains only six items.

9. It is significant to note here that as per the case of the prosecution the check period is between 01.01.2001 and 31.08.2008. Item Nos. 1 to 5 seems to have been acquired prior to the check period. Item No.6 is Jewellery presented to the wife of petitioner at that time of her marriage and therefore, it stands in the name of his Wife. Obviously, the wife of the petitioner is not an accused in this case.

10. On coming to Statement No.2, it