Judgment Rule By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The petitioner who is the accused no.2 in Special Case No.5/2005 pending before the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, has challenged the order dated 6/4/2011 by which charge has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Section 109 of I.P.C r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The respondent has filed charged sheet against the petitioner and her husband Menino Abel D'Souza for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has ordered framing of charge against both the accused. The order has become final against accused no.1 who has chosen not to challenge the same. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that voluminous documents produced by the prosecution do not make out a case of abetment of offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and this aspect has neither been referred to nor considered by the learned Special Judge. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if the Special Judge were to scrutinize the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution carefully, the learned Special Judge ought to have come to the conclusion that no case for offence punishable under Section 109 of I.P.C r/w 13 (2) and 13(1) (e) of the Act was made out against the present petitioner. 6. Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that he has not objection if the impugned order is set aside as against accused no.2 and the matter remanded back to the learned Special Judge for fresh consideration. He further submitted that charge has been framed on 13/7/2012. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the records discloses that the learned Special Judge while ordering framing of charge against the petitioner has not made even a brief reference to the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution which prima facie reveal offences against the petitioner. Having regard to the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the concession made by the Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents deserves to be accepted. 9. Having regard to the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the concession made by the Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents deserves to be accepted. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order to the extent it has ordered framing of charge and also charge framed on 13/7/2012 against the petitioner/accused no.2 are set aside and the matter remanded to the learned Special Judge for fresh consideration only qua the present petitioner. It is made clear that the impugned order insofar as accused no.1 is concerned is not interfered with. 10. The learned Special Judge shall pass a fresh order after considering the materials available against the present petitioner in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.