1. Petitioner-accused has filed this Criminal Revision questioning Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Kashmir-Srinagars Order of July 26, 2008 in so far as it, allows prosecutions application and directs summoning of Sh. Brij Mohan Vij for his examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioners learned counsel submits that summoning of Brij Mohan Vij would result in filling up the lacuna in the prosecution case and the order passed by the learned Special Judge was, thus, unjustified. 3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order on the ground that the production of Brij Mohan Vij, as witness in the case, was necessary to serve the cause of justice in establishing that the petitioner-accused was, in fact, the purchaser of the Flat in question, in view of the statements of the enlisted prosecution witnesses, namely; L.P.Rehani and his wife who had disclosed, during the course of their examination that the land on which the Flat had been constructed, had been sold by them to one Brij Mohan Vij, who had constructed Flats thereon and it was only Brij Mohan Vij who had sold the Flat in question to the son of the petitioner, and in this view of the matter no interference with the order impugned in the petition may be warranted under law. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Special Judge. 5. Learned Special Judge has considered the evidence of Brij Mohan Vij essential for bringing material evidence as to the purchase of Flat on records, which the prosecution alleges to have been purchased by the petitioner, to prove that the petitioner had in his possession, property disproportionate to his known sources of income, and regarding his violating the provisions of Sections 12/14 of the Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets Act, 1983. 6. Summoning of Sh. 6. Summoning of Sh. Brij Mohan Vij under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to unfold facts as to the sale of the Flat in question to the petitioner-accused, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to fill up lacuna in the prosecution case, in that, the sub-stratum of the prosecution case, of petitioners possessing property disproportionate to his known sources of income, does not change, in any manner whatsoever, by directing production of Brij Mohan Vij, whose evidence in the case becomes essential, in view of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses that they had sold the land underneath the Flat in question to Brij Mohan Vij-Builder, who had constructed Flats thereon which included the Flat in question. 7. For all what has been said above, I do not find the learned Special Judge to have committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. 8. Found without merit, this Criminal Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.