At discharge stage, prima facie evidence must indicate a case exists; defence matters cannot be thoroughly examined until trial. Abetment can include non-public servants aiding corrupt conduct.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to set aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna, in G.R.(V) Case No.11 of 2013 arising out of Korapur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27 of 2013, whereby the petition filed by the Petitioner seeking their discharge from the aforesaid case has been rejected.

2. The background facts of the case are that the husband of the Petitioner was trapped in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.16 of 2013, pursuant to which search was conducted in the residential house of the Petitioner. During the course of search, documents were seized and on scrutiny thereof a separate enquiry was undertaken. During enquiry it was found that the Petitioner’s husband, after completing Diploma in Civil Engineering, had joined Government service on contractual basis as a Technical Consultant (TC) in the office of the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Kalahandi in the year 1999. It was further found during enquiry that during the check period the Petitioner’s husband had acquired assets worth Rs.1,77,39,254/-, incurred expenditure of approximately Rs.26,95,022/-, and the disproportionate assets were assessed at Rs.1,59,94,897/-, constituting 136.34% of his total income. On the basis of the said enquiry, Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.27 of 2013 was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the IPC against the Petitioner’s husband and the present Petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna. The Petitioner having filed an application for discharge, the same came to be rejected by order dated 18.02.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present criminal revision before this Court.

3. Mr. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently argued against the impugned order and submitted that the learned trial court committed a manifest error in rejecting the prayer for discharge without properly appreciating the materials placed on record. Learned counsel contended that the property statement submitted by the Petitioner clearly discloses lawful acquisition of assets from known and independent sources of income, including her professional earnings as an Ayurvedic medical practitioner, which fact has not been disputed by the prosecution. It was urged that several years of admitted income of the Petitioner, along with lawful receipts such as gifts received at the time of marriage and family ceremonies, advances received towards sale of property, hand loans, and financial assistance received from relatives, have either been ignored or wrongly treated as assets of the public servant, thereby vitiating the entire computation of alleged disproportionate assets. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Special Judge failed to examine whether the essential ingredients of Section 109 of the IPC were prima facie made out against the Petitioner. According to learned counsel, there is no material in the charge-sheet or investigation record to indicate any act of abetment, conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the Petitioner, and mere existence of properties in her name, particularly when she is an earning member with independent sources of income, cannot constitute abetment in law. It was also contended that the valuation of immovable properties has been erroneously inflated and that assets legitimately acquired by the Petitioner h