Revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to ensuring legal correctness, not reappraising evidence or factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in VGR Case No. 01 of 2019, arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 59 of 2018. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. (now Section 250 of the B.N.S.S., 2023), seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 109 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.

2. Heard Mr. Prasant Kishore Ray, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

3. The petitioner No.1 is a government employee serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Anandpur Barrage Division, Keonjhar. He entered government service on 05.10.1993 as a Junior Engineer and was promoted to the position of Assistant Engineer on 11.09.2013. During his tenure, a vigilance case bearing VGR Case No. 1 of 2019, arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 59 of 2018, was registered against the petitioner alleging possession of Disproportionate Assets (D.A.) to the known source of his earning. The case was initiated under Section 109 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 13 (2) and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

4. On 19.12.2018, the Vigilance Department conducted a search at the residence of the petitioner No.1 based on the allegations of possessing DA. The F.I.R was registered on 31.12.2018, alleging that the petitioner No.1 was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 139.39%. The investigation was conducted for the check period from 05.10.1993 to 19.12.2018, during which the following calculations were made as per the FIR:

- Total Assets: Rs.81,11,683/-

- Total Expenditure: Rs.29,70,682/-

- Known Income: Rs.46,29,289/-

- DA as per FIR: Rs.64,53,076/- (139.39%)

5. The petitioners filed a discharge petition on 12.09.2023 under Section 227 Cr.P.C., asserting multiple discrepancies in the computation of assets, expenditure, and income by the investigating agency. The petitioners contended that:

- Several assets, such as an old Hyundai Santro car and a Hero Honda motorcycle, were wrongly attributed to him despite being owned by his brother.

- The cost of the residential building was inflated by considering a value of Rs.23,31,572/-, while the actual construction cost was Rs.7,50,000/- after accounting for a bank loan and self-contribution.

- Gold ornaments given to the petitioner's wife by her father as dowry in 1995 were incorrectly valued as assets acquired during the check period.

- Income from a LIC policy and land acquisition compensation, amounting to Rs.1,15,164/- and Rs.1,95,476/- respectively, were excluded from the income calculations despite being supported by documentary evidence.

- The petitioner's actual DA percentage, after correcting the erroneous calculations and including the omitted income, was -6.77%, which is well below the permissible threshold of 10% as per the precedent laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi vrs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 .

6. On 17.11.2023, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar, rejected the discharge petition, holding that the stage was not appropriate for examining the defence contentions and that the alleged discrepan