ORDER

This original petition has been filed by A3 against the order dated

15.09.2021 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for exclusive trial of CBI Cases, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2021 in C.C.No.10 of 2018 dismissing the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon the Income Tax Returns of the petitioner firm and to consider the same in an application filed by him under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the charges.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

(i) There are totally 3 accused in this case. One Thangavel (A1) is the brother of the petitioner-M.Marichamy (A3), who was working as Section Supervisor in Employees Provident Fund Organization at Regional Office, Chennai and P.Vijayalakshmi (A2) wife of A1.

(ii) According to the prosecution, during the period between

01.12.2011 and 09.12.2016, A1 acquired assets to the tune of Rs.1,09,49,215/- in his name and in the name of his wife (A2) which are disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account for. Hence, on the basis of source information, a crime was registered for the offence u/s 109 of IPC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 initially against M.Thangavel (A1) and his wife Smt.P.Vijayalakshmi (A2). Subsequently, the investigation revealed that the petitioner who said to have been running a firm by name M/s.Efficient Management Consultant ( in short “EMC”) and the firm was maintaining Current Account with South Indian Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai. From that account, a sum of Rs.36.00 lakhs was paid to various vendors towards purchase of an immovable property situated at CIT Nagar in the name of A2 by A1. Subsequently, A1 constructed a commercial and residential buildings on the property and a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- was also paid to the contractor. That amount was also paid through the petitioner firm during 2013-2014. That apart a sum of Rs.09.50 lakhs was paid to M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt Limited on behalf of A2 and another sum of Rs.2.35 lakhs was transferred from the account of the petitioner firm to A2. Earlier a total sum of Rs.77.53,200/- was deposited into the account of the petitioner firm, which was subsequently, paid to the vendors of the land, builder and towards other dues by way of cheques.

(iii) Further according to the prosecution, during the relevant period, the petitioner's family was staying in a rental accommodation at Alwarpet in Chennai and there was no materials available to show that the petitioner had huge income through his business. During investigation, despite opportunity having been given to the petitioner to offer explanation, he failed to satisfactorily explain the sources of income for the deposit made into his firm's account as well as cheque which he had issued on behalf of A1 and A2 for the purpose of purchase of land and construction of building. In the said circumstances, on the basis of materials collected during the investigation, the respondent filed charge sheet implicating the petitioner as A3 for the offence u/s 109 of IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge on taking cognizance of offence issued process.

(iv) While so, the petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.7326 of 2018 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the charges. Pending that application, the petitioner filed moved a petition before the learned Special Judge under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking to summon his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed for the y ear 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 which was seized during investigation, alleging that those ITRs would be sufficient to establish that his firm had sufficient income during the relevant period for making payment in favour of A1 and A2. Even though all those documents were seized by CBI during investigation, the prosecution did not consider the same and it did not form part of the final report and they are still available with