Judgment : The nutshell of the case are as follows:- 1. The revision petitioner / accused No.13 had filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the Criminal Proceedings in Crime No.9/AC/96/HQ for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of IPC, on the file of respondent, stating that he is an innocent person, and that without oral or documentary evidence, the said criminal case had been filed. The revision petitioner has further stated that he has not abetted with A1 as stated in the final report. As per final report, there is no prima facie case against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has acquired sufficient income through his agricultural operations and this had not been considered by the prosecution, who had wrongly calculated the income and expenditure of the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner further submitted that the Coffee Estate of an extent of 25.45 acres was not purchased by the A1 in the name of the revision petitioner. Further, the house property at Kilpauk, Chennai has also not been purchased by the A-1 in the name of A-13. The revision petitioner further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that the A1 had purchased property at T.Nagar, and made investments in Thiruvettai Ayyanar Spinning Mills, Madurai, Kavitha Pharma and various banks in the name of the revision petitioner have not been authenticated. Hence, the discharge petition has been filed by the accused. 3. The respondent had filed a counter statement and rebutted the averments of the revision petitioner. The respondent stated that the A1 was a Minister of the State from 17.06.1991 to 13.05.1996 and he has accumulated properties, money sources, disproportionate to the known sources of income, and hence an enquiry was contemplated and after verifying the same, the F.I.R. was registered against A1 on 02.09.1996. After investigation, it was found that A1 having acquired considerable wealth from ill-gotten money could not keep them in his own account and hence has abutted with A2 to A20, converted his wealth into the properties and securities of A2 to A20. During the investigation, A1 was called upon to furnish the property statements. As per his statement, A2 to A20 had abetted with A1. During the investigation, A1 was called upon to furnish the property statements. As per his statement, A2 to A20 had abetted with A1. The income of the revision petitioner was estimated at Rs.13,17,471/-before the check period, and the property worth Rs.47,02,787/- was acquired during the check period and this clearly shows that A1 had purchased the properties in the name of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was unable to answer the query raised on the above aspect. As per revision petitioner's income returns, his income was Rs.4,08,160/-. The property was purchased to the tune of Rs.46,11,625/-. 4. On considering the averments and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for their respective parties, the learned judge had observed that the revision petitioner has purchased properties and other necessary resources to the tune of Rs.47,02,787/-, and that he has not given any sources for these purchases made by him. Therefore, it was held by the judge that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for framing charges. Hence, the discharge petition was dismissed. 5. Against the dismissal of the discharge petition, the above revision has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that there is no substantial evidence to prove the prosecution case against the accused. The revision petitioner had not abetted with A1 to acquire assets in the form of land, house sites, house buildings, reinvestment in banks as alleged in the final report. Actually, the revision petitioner had acquired the properties from his own income. The respondent had wrongly calculated the income and expenditure of the revision petitioner and falsely implicated him in the prosecution case. There are no material evidence to show that the Coffee estate at Karnataka, house building at Kilpauk, house site at T.Nagar and investment made in Tiruvettai Ayyanar Spinning Mills and Kavitha Pharma have been made by the first accused in the name of the revision petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the State would submit that for the Coffee Estate, the sale deed had been registered as Document No.305 of 1995 and for other items of properties, documentary evidence are available. To prove the prosecution case, sufficient material evidence are furnished and also the list of witnesses were given before the trial Court. The learned counsel further submits that the case is ready for trial. To prove the prosecution case, sufficient material evidence are furnished and also the list of witnesses were given before the trial Court. The learned counsel further submits that the case is ready for trial. To avoid the trial, the revision petition has been filed to cause multiplicity in proceedings. 8. On checking the prosecution case, and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for their respective parties and on scrutinizing the impugned order of the Special Judge-I, Chennai, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court passed in Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2009 in Special C.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge-I / X Additional Judge, Chennai, dated 24.04.2009, as it is found to be in order. Hence, the above revision is dismissed. 9. Resultantly, the above Criminal Revision is dismissed. As a consequence the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2009 in Special C.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge-I / X Additional Judge, Chennai, dated 24.04.2009 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.