1. These two Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the State represented by the Inspector of Police for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The respondents in Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.840 and 841 of 2017 are V.Janagiraman, a public servant arrayed as first accused and his wife Vasanthy arrayed as second accused respectively.

3. The final report which resulted in the investigation of complaint registered in Crime No.6/AC/2001 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli disclosed the first accused as a public servant working as Sub Registrar (Admn.), Office of Deputy General of Registration, Tiruchirappalli was found acquired wealth disproportionate to his known source of income in the name of his wife Vasanthy while serving as Sub Registrar at various places in Trichy District, during the period between 1989 to 1993.

4. The investigation has revealed that during the check period between 01.04.1989 and 31.12.1993, his known source of income through monthly salary and the income of his wife through transport lorries was Rs.32,25,534/- including the consideration of a landed property at Vilpatti sold by the accused during the check period. The expenditure of his family during the check period assessed as Rs.15,24,621/- and likely savings Rs.17,00,913/- whereas the value of the assets held by A.1 and A.2 put together was Rs.48,31,417/- at the end of the check period. This being nearly 97.05% over and above the known source of income, after obtaining sanction from the competent authority, final report to try the first accused for offence under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and against second accused for offence under Section 109 IPC read with 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, laid before the Special Court for trial of cases under P.C. Act, Tiruchirappalli. The prosecution has listed 75 witnesses and 77 documents, which they proposed to rely to prove the case.

5. The Trial Court has taken cognizance of the case, served copies of documents to the accused and has heard the accused and the prosecution, before framing charge.

6. The petitions in Crl.M.P.No.47 of 2011 and Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2011 filed by the accused to discharge, have been considered by the Trial Court and allowed on the ground that the investigation is incomplete and lack prima facie evidence. The investigation officer has not given opportunity to A.2 to explain her source to purchase the properties which stand in her name. The civil suit in O.S.No.217 of 1994 filed by A.2 against A.1 for declaration and injunction, has not been taken into consideration by the investigation officer. The first accused and the second accused have separated in the year 1989 and executed deed of separation in the year 1992. The income of A.2 derived through the transport business availing loan under hire purchase, her bank statement of accounts showing adequate income to acquire the properties on her own and the income tax returns filed by her, were ignored by investigation officer. Hence, discharged both the accused.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor questions the legality of the above order on the ground that the Trial Court has taken into consideration facts which are not relevant to the case or documents created by the accused subsequent to registration of case against them. Alleging that in the discharge petition, the Trial Court has traversed beyond the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C., by conducting mini trial. The materials placed before the Court which were collected in the course of investigation would reveal prima facie ground to prosecute them. If, the prosecution prove them in the trial, it will end up in conviction.

8. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents defend the impugned order, citing Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Cour