At the discharge stage, a court assesses the prosecution's evidence on its face value to determine if there are grounds to proceed with trial, without full examination of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the Parties.

2. By means of this application the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. No.05 of 2021 wherein the application for discharge of the Petitioners was rejected by the learned court.

3. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.1, entered into the Govt. Service on 08.12.1986, as a Forester, under the DFO, Wild Life Division, Chandbali and later promoted to the post of Forest Range Officer, wherein he worked in different places and further promoted to the post of Asst. Conservator of Forest on 27.09.2018. A vigilance raid was conducted in the house of the Petitioners for alleged accumulation of the property disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period from 08.12.1986 to 31.12.2019. It is alleged that the Petitioner No.1, intentionally enriched himself illicitly by acquiring and possessing assets, disproportionate to his known source of Income and his wife abetted the act by acquiring portion of disproportionate property and for so doing, the Lokayukta vide letter No.270/LY, dated 21.09.2021, in LY Case No.30/2014, directed an inquiry to be taken up by the Vigilance Department, Orissa and accordingly, the DSP, Vigilance, Balasore Division, submitted a written report before the S.P, Balasore, Vigilance Division, on 29.02.2020 alleging that Petitioner No.1, Laxman Kumar Pradhan found to have enriched himself illicitly being in illegal possession of assets worth of Rs.73,55,211/-, disproportionate to his known source of income of Rs.56,45,375/- during his service period. Accordingly, the Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.13 of 2020 (29.02.2020) for the offences under Section 13 (1)(b) r/w. Sections 13 (2) & Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 was registered and investigation was undertaken. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted to the effect that during the check period as aforestated, the Petitioner No.1 was found in possession of assets worth of Rs.29,91,739.34/- in his name and in the name of his family members, disproportionate to his known source of income which he could not account for satisfactorily. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment made by the Vigilance and the submission of the charge sheet, moved the learned court for his discharge on the ground that the investigating officer has omitted to consider the material part of the income of the Petitioner and even the expenses of their children besides the income in calculating the D.A. so also the stipend received by his daughter to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- during her MBBS study and the sum of Rs.16,90,921/- in respect to the stipend by his son for his P.G. study and that the investigating officer has arrived at an erroneous calculation. The learned court having heard the parties and considering the ground for discharge of the Petitioner from the offences alleged arrived at the conclusion that the aforesaid aspect of the D.A., the educational expenditure so also the stipend received by his daughter and son have been taken onto account while calculating the income of the Petitioner and the calculation, arrived at by the Vigilance in course of the investigation, is inclusive of all that the Petitioner claimed to have not been included and as such, there is ample of material to proceed against the Petitioners to frame the charge in order to face the trial.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners in course of the hearing in this appeal, reiterated the aforesaid ground and took this Court through various documents purportedly to have not been t