Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision is directed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of criminal Procedure Code (for short code) against the order dated 20-10-2004, passed by Special Judge, (Lokayukt), Jabalpur, in Special Case No. 7/2001, whereby direction for framing charges under Section 13 (1) (e) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short p. C. Act)has been given against the applicant and in pursuance of it, charges were framed. ( 2. ) IT is undisputed fact that an offence under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of P. C. Act was registered against applicant as Crime No. 57/91 by Special police Establishment of Lokayukt. According to prosecution, the applicant was posted as Assistant Engineer, in Water Resources Department (at present known as Tubewell Department) at Samnapur (Dindori), and on searched applicant was found in possession of very huge disproportionate property according to Police Report filed under Section 173 of Code. Initially the applicant was appointed as overseer in the said Department at Mandla and during his service tenure he received or earned money to the tune of rs. 15,36,921 from the known sources while his expenditure and investments were found to the tune of Rs. 46,44,102/- according to chart submitted with the said police report thus applicant was found in possession of disproportionate property having worth Rs. 31,07,180/- approximately without any satisfactory account of it. Therefore on investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and on consideration, prima facie ingredients of said alleged offences were made out. So with direction for framing charges, the same are framed under said sections. I have gathered the above said information from papers of charge-sheet placed by applicant on record. It also appears by the impugned order that at the time of search he being public servant was holding the post of Assistant Engineer in the said department and on receiving the said information non-applicant/lokayukt conducted the said search by a strength of search warrant dated 5-5-1991, the above said raid was made at different places including house of applicant at Napier Town, Jabalpur and Hotel Blue-Moon, Jabalpur as well as on other relevant places and the schedule of the property with description were prepared, and, according to that Rs. 15,36,921/- was found as income from known legal sources in between the period of 1980 to 1991, while expenses was found to Rs. 46,44,102/ -. 15,36,921/- was found as income from known legal sources in between the period of 1980 to 1991, while expenses was found to Rs. 46,44,102/ -. In this tune he was found in possession of the disproportionate income of Rs. 31,07,180/- and charge-sheeted. ( 3. ) COUNSEL for applicant submitted that prosecution has not submitted the original documents before the Trial Court and whatsoever duplicate/carbon copies of such documents placed on record are not admissible and besides this the sources of collection of said property has not been properly explained in the charge-sheet so it can not be levelled as property of the applicant. ( 4. ) HIS further submission was that the property earned or acquired by his wife, brother, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and son have also been shown as the property of the applicant, which is contrary to the prescribed legal position. ( 5. ) HIS further submission was that his agriculture income was not included during assessment of his income. In view of the abovesaid submission his prayer was that after excluding the properties of above said relatives like wife, son, brother, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and other persons he was not having any disproportionate property in his own name, and, according to him, the concerning house of Jabalpur and Hotel Blue Moon are not his property in any manner and even according to the documents, these properties were not belonging to him at any point of time, as submitted, name of his wife was also wrongly mentioned and in view of these he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and discharge to the applicant from levelled charges. ( 6. ) WHILE, on the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer representing the State has vehemently argued that the framing of charge against applicant by the Trial Court is fully justified in view of the entire papers of charge-sheet and the facts and circumstances of the case and whatsoever submission has been put forth by the applicant that may be a good defence at the trial but at this juncture when prima facie grounds are available to proceed against him, thus the charges are properly framed and it does not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction and also prayed for dismissal of this revision petition. ( 7. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having perused the concerning papers which are placed on record by the applicant and also the concerning police report filed under Section 173 (2) of Code alongwith the annexed chart and impugned order, I am of the view that at this stage impugned order does not require any interference and the same can not be set aside by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. ( 8. ) ALTHOUGH it is apparent fact that various important documents are not submitted in original before the Trial Court but their photo-copies are placed on record and this can not be challenged at the initial stage of framing charges, but, the applicant would be at liberty to challenge the same at trial only and the Trial Court shall decide the objections of the applicant as per prescribed procedure of law, if it would be taken. But, at this juncture it is apparent that on receiving the information the subject-matter was enquired and investigated by the non-applicant and applicant was found in possession of disproportionate property in comparison of his income from known sources and not only the small one but very huge properties were found and as per assessment of the investigating agency these disproportionate properties was having worth of more than rs. 31 lakhs and even otherwise prima facie ingredients of offence are apparently made out from the chart and Police Report as well as FIR and especially as per Annexure P-5 in which 19 items (property) mentioned with their market value then charges can not be said groundless. If such properties are not belonging to applicant, then this can be decided at the stage of the trial and, therefore, the trial is necessity of this matter and till contrary is proved. This information was sufficient to work out the ingredients of the offence and the same was worked out by the Trial Court for framing the charges. ( 9. ) MY aforesaid view is fully supported by the judgment of the Apex court in the case of State of Maharashtra Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapas Etc. Etc. , reported in AIR 1996 SC 1744 , in which in Para 32 it is held :- "32. ( 9. ) MY aforesaid view is fully supported by the judgment of the Apex court in the case of State of Maharashtra Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapas Etc. Etc. , reported in AIR 1996 SC 1744 , in which in Para 32 it is held :- "32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the material on record can not be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. " Besides all these circumstances, the order impugned is correct in view of section 20 of the P. C. Act, which says about presumption against the accused even on that count charge was properly framed. This presumption can only be rebutted at the stage of trial by the applicant and till then his submission regarding discharge is not considerable and can not be considered. ( 10. ) THEREFORE, I have not found any perversity or illegality or irregularity or anything contrary to the prescribed procedure in the impugned order which can be levelled as any error of jurisdiction committed by Trial Court. 12. In view of the aforesaid premises, this revision petition does not have any merits and the same is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. Criminal Revision dismissed.