Discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. requires consideration of whether a prima facie case exists; trial court's scrutiny of evidence is improper at this stage.

ORDER :

These Criminal Revisions have been filed by the State challenging the order dated 06.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, in C.C.No.14 of 2004, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused from the criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.C. Act").

2. Since the issue involved and the allegations are one and the same, pertaining to corruption and vigilance-related offenses, and the respondents are the family members and relatives of the first accused-deceased public servant, these Criminal Revisions have been taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

3. The case of the prosecution is that S.Arumugam was the Minister for Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu, from 13.05.1996 to 14.05.2001. As a Minister, he was a public servant as defined under Section 2 (e) of the P.C. Act. He hailed from Poolavari Village, Salem District, and had various business interests, including a steel factory named Karuna Steel Re-rolling Mill and a transport service named Anbu Transport. He was a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from 1962 to 1976, a Member of the Legislative Council from 1978 to 1983, and subsequently elected as MLA from Veerapandi in 1989 and 1996, holding ministerial positions in the Government of Tamil Nadu. The prosecution has taken the period from 13.05.1996 to 14.05.2001 as the check period for assessing the alleged disproportionate assets.

4. The prosecution alleges that on 13.05.1996, at the commencement of the check period, he was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the names of his family members, amounting to Rs.74,53,036.99. By the end of the check period on 14.05.2001, the total assets held in his name and in the names of his family members had increased to Rs.2,43,57,820.92. Thus, it is alleged that he acquired disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.1,69,05,783.93.

5. Further, during the check period, he is stated to have derived a total income of Rs.1,25,49,450.35 from known sources while incurring an expenditure of Rs.1,37,29,302.95. The excess expenditure beyond his income was calculated at Rs.11,79,822.60. Thus, the total disproportionate assets allegedly acquired amount to Rs.1,80,85,606.53. Since he failed to satisfactorily account for these assets, he was charged under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the P.C. Act. The prosecution further alleged that his family members abetted him in committing the offense by holding substantial portions of these properties and pecuniary resources on his behalf, making them liable under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the P.C. Act.

6. The learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the material and documents before it, took the case on file as Special C.C.No.14 of 2004. The accused/respondents moved an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the case. On 06.11.2006, the learned Special Judge allowed the petitions and discharged the respondents/accused from the charges.

7. Aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the learned Special Judge, the State preferred Criminal Revision Petitions. In the meantime, the main accused/S.Arumugham died. Initially, these revisions Crl.R.C.Nos.260, 261, 263, and 264 of 2013 were dismissed by this Court on 11.03.2013, holding that due to the death of the main accused, the charge