JUDGMENT Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J.: - This is a revision petition under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2011, as well as, charge sheet dated 08.12.2011, whereby, the petitioner has been charged under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the Orders dated 28.11.2011 vide which the case was fixed for framing of charges, as well as, qua the Orders dated 08.12.2011, vide which, charges under Sections 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been framed against the petitioner. The dispute in brief is regarding allegations against the petitioner of having spent more than his income during the period from 01.07.1995 to 30.06.2001. As per the allegations, he had spent Rs.6,65,211/- i.e more than his income. The income as alleged to be calculated of the petitioner is Rs.20,59,042/-, whereas, the income alleged to be spent has been calculated as Rs.27,13,313/-. 3. The petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No.33188-M of 2006, which was disposed on 29.05.2006 by this Court with a direction that “After considering the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, in the interest of justice, without issuing notice to the State, and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra), this petition is disposed of with direction to the investigating agency to consider the documents Annexure P-2 to P-4, produced by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer, before submitting final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C in the aforesaid FIR.” 4. It was contended that the Investigating Agency has filed the challan dated 08.01.2007, wherein, it was also mentioned that the documents have been considered, whereas, the said documents were not considered. It was further stated that out of the 10 documents being referred to in the High Court Order, only 03 were given a passing reference in the challan. Rest of the documents have not been taken into consideration. It was further stated that the petitioner moved an application dated 18.08.2009 before the Special Judge, Amritsar for consideration of pleas in pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 15.04.2009 granting him the liberty to raise all his pleas before the trial Court and the said application was dismissed vide Order dated 28.11.2011 and framing of charges was ordered. It was further stated that the petitioner moved an application dated 18.08.2009 before the Special Judge, Amritsar for consideration of pleas in pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 15.04.2009 granting him the liberty to raise all his pleas before the trial Court and the said application was dismissed vide Order dated 28.11.2011 and framing of charges was ordered. The charges were framed on 08.12.2011. It was contended that even the Special Judge did not take into consideration the documents Annexures P-2 to P-4 while dismissing his application and directing the framing of charges. 5. It was contended that while calculating the expenditure incurred by the petitioner during 01.07.1995 to 30.06.2001, the authorities/investigating officer took into consideration the expenditure on construction of plot no.566 in Basant Avenue, Amritsar i.e where now petitioner is residing as if the construction had been made after 01.07.1995. The Investigating Officer thus considered expenditure of Rs.6,98,891/- on construction of Plot no.566 as the expenditure incurred after 01.07.1995 and before 30.06.2001. Whereas, it was evident from documents P-2 to P-4 that the said construction was completed prior to the year 1995 and in case, the said expenditure of Rs.6,98,891/- is deleted, there would be no excess in his income beyond the known sources and the Courts below got totally confused while dealing with the issue and wrongly held that the Investigating Agency has taken the expenses incurred on the first floor, whereas, a perusal of Annexure P-2/B dated 14.07.1989 shows that the contention of the petitioner was qua first floor and not ground floor. Heard. 6. It is evident from perusal of Annexure P-6, which is the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C that the documents P-2 to P-4 were taken into consideration. The same reads thus:- “ In Crl. Misc. No.33188-M of 2006, Hon’ble Judge had ordered to consider Annexure P-2 to P-4. Annexure P-2 is not connected with the assessment period, it is of 1978. Annexure P-2/G is of Rs.2220/- as consideration of agreement which was already shown in chart as expenditure on stamp duty in registry for purchase. Annexure P-4 is the payment of Rs.12,448/- as penalty which is not within the assessment period. The expenditure mentioned in documents Annexure P- 2 to P-4 has been checked again. Annexure P-2/G is of Rs.2220/- as consideration of agreement which was already shown in chart as expenditure on stamp duty in registry for purchase. Annexure P-4 is the payment of Rs.12,448/- as penalty which is not within the assessment period. The expenditure mentioned in documents Annexure P- 2 to P-4 has been checked again. The expenditures shown in these documents, except expenditure on consideration of agreement i.e Rs.2220/- is not found in the income and expenditure as shown in chart during check period from 1995 to 2001.” 7. The argument that the Court below, too, have not taken into consideration Annexures P-2 to P-4 cannot be accepted. The Special Judge, Amritsar, while considering the said documents, held as under:- “ 10. I, at my own, for the purpose of framing charge against the accused, have gone through all the documents annexed with the challan and have also considered the other material on record, the check period starts from 01.07.1995 and goes to 31.06.2001. In this very period, the accused has purchased 4 kanals of land on 10.7.1995 in village Ghosabad in the name of his son Amritpal Singh, where an amount of Rs.54,060/- was paid as stamp fee, then six kanals of land was purchased on 17.05.1996 in village Ghosabad by the accused in the name of his wife Sukhraj Kaur and son Amritpal Singh, on which stamp fee paper of Rs.75,260/- was attached. Then, on 2.7.1996 booth no.4 was purchased in the name of Sukhraj Kaur wife of the accused in `C’ Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and an amount of Rs.42,000/- was spent on stamp fee. Rs.2220/- was spent on 13.12.1995 at the time of registration of the sale deed of plot no.566 Basant Avenue, Amritsar. Although the accused has stated that the Improvement Trust had issued notice for making an unauthorized construction prior to the year 1995 in regard to the above said house no.566 in Basant Avenue, Amritsar but the investigating agency has not shown in the expenditure chart the amount incurred on the construction of ground floor rather an amount of Rs.6,98,891/- have been shown in the expenditure chart for the construction of the first floor of the said house and not the ground floor. Then in the year 1998 Darshan Singh has spent Rs.2,11,295/- for purchasing a flat from PUDA at Mohali, Indica car no.PB-02-AA- 790 was purchased during this very period by way of spending Rs.3,56,275/-, Maruti Car was purchased in the name of his son Amritpal Singh by spending Rs.2,26,726/-, Television of Sharp Co. was purchased by Darshan Singh by spending Rs.10,000/- and Rs.17,000/- was spent on purchase of Air Condition on 17.9.2001 for payment of installments, the accused had spent Rs.1,78,052/-. In this way, the accused has spent Rs.27,13,313/- during the check period despite the fact that his income from the known sources during this period was Rs.20,59,042/- and as such he has spent Rs.6,65,211/- in excess of his income regarding which the accused had not been able to account for. So, even after consideration of the said annexure P-2 to P-4 and even other documents on record it cannot be said at all that no offence is made out against the accused.” 8. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said documents have not been taken into consideration, is not borne out either from the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C or from the Order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Amrirtsar, which, in fact shows that the same were duly considered. 9. In any case, the documents Annexures P-2 to P-4 referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, are in fact, agreement dated 15.05.1978 with Improvement Trust revealing price of the plot as Rs.36,670.40, which is Annexure P-2, Agreement dated 08.05.1981 with Improvement Trust by which the petitioner got the possession of plot no.566, Basant Avenue, measuring 213.20 sq. 9. In any case, the documents Annexures P-2 to P-4 referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, are in fact, agreement dated 15.05.1978 with Improvement Trust revealing price of the plot as Rs.36,670.40, which is Annexure P-2, Agreement dated 08.05.1981 with Improvement Trust by which the petitioner got the possession of plot no.566, Basant Avenue, measuring 213.20 sq. yards (Annexure P-2/A), Letter dated 14.7.1989 sent by Improvement Trust to the petitioner revealing that construction at first floor had started (Annexure P-2/B), Letter dated 21.7.1989 from Improvement Trust issuing show cause notice for raising construction on plot no.566, Basant Avenue (Annexure P-2/C), Letter dated 12.09.1989 from Chairman, Amritsar Improvement Trust directing the petitioner to demolish the construction (Annexure P-2/D), Letter dated 12.10.1993 from Amritsar Improvement Trust showing that the entire construction of double storey had been completed upto 7.11.1991 (Annexure P-2/E), Letter dated 23.11.1995, vide which, Improvement Trust approved completion plan of double storey building that submitted for approval by the petitioner on 7.11.1991 (Annexure P-2/F) and Sale Deed dated 29.1.1996 executed by Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar in favour of petitioner on 29.1.1996, which is Annexure P-2/G. Annexure P-3 is only an affidavit dated 31.05.1995 to the Improvement Trust, wherein, the petitioner had stated that he had completed the building on the said plot and P-4 was an undertaking. 10. Whether there was any more construction or not after the said period, is also a matter of evidence. The fact that these documents pertain to the year 1995 showing construction to be prior to 1995 does not mean that no further construction or repair was done after the said period. The same, too, would be a subject matter of evidence. Whether the said construction was actually prior to the year 1995 is a matter of dispute as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar in his Order dated 08.01.2007 had duly noted that the petitioner had himself written the period of construction as 1995 to 2001 in the map which was supplied by the accused to the technical team of Vigilance Bureau Punjab, Chandigarh and therefore, it would be a subject matter of evidence. 11. The petitioner has come against the order framing of charges. At the time of framing of the charge, prima facie case has to be seen. 12. 11. The petitioner has come against the order framing of charges. At the time of framing of the charge, prima facie case has to be seen. 12. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. V. Sanjay Choudhary and others reported as [2008(6) Law Herald (SC) 4012] : 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 640 in paras 10 and 11, held as under :- “10. After analyzing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the differences there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied. 11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside, The appeal is allowed.” 13. In view of the above, it would not be proper to interfere with the order framing charges. 14. Dismissed. 15. However, anything said herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. ----------------