Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, for the Vigilance. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been filed against the order dated 12.11.2012 passed in Special Case No. 65 of 2006, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 78 of 2006 by which the application filed for release of Rs. 2,81,500/- seized from the residential house of the petitioner in connection with Special Case No. 65 of 2006/Vigilance P.S. Case No. 78 of 2006, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for release of the money has been filed by the petitioner, from whose house the aforesaid money was recovered and seized on the ground that it belonged to her son-in-law who was accused in Special Case No. 65 of 2006/Vigilance P.S. Case No. 78 of 2006, and was caught in a trap case while accepting bribe. It is submitted that the recovery was from the house of the petitioner and the son-in-law only used to live there in a room. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed only on the ground that investigation on the point of lodging case against the accused for disproportionate assets is going on. It is submitted that such ground is not contemplated in law and is erroneous. It is his contention that only pursuant to a substantial F.I.R. being lodged, the police has any power to investigate. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2013 (2) PLJR (SC) 373, the relevant being at paragraph 52 (b). It is the contention of learned counsel that on the day when the application for release has been rejected i.e., 12.11.2012, there was no case for disproportionate assets pending and thus the ground that investigation on the point of lodging such case is going on, cannot be sustained. It is the contention of learned counsel that on the day when the application for release has been rejected i.e., 12.11.2012, there was no case for disproportionate assets pending and thus the ground that investigation on the point of lodging such case is going on, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has referred to Sections 2(g) and (h) of the Code and submits that enquiry other than a trial conducted under the Code relates to one by a Magistrate or Court which in the present case is not there and also that investigation includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf, which also is not the case here. Learned counsel submits that the police under Section 154 of the Code are supposed to first lodge an F.I.R. if the information available to them discloses a cognizable offence and thereafter to start investigation. In the present case, since money was recovered in Special Case No. 65 of 2006/Vigilance Case No. 78 of 2006 and charge-sheet has also been submitted in January, 2006 itself, without there being any lodging of a case/F.I.R. for disproportionate assets, the prayer for release of money in favour of the petitioner ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel has further submitted that even for lodging a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘P.C. Act’) the procedure which has to be followed is under the Code which mandates that first an F.I.R. has to be lodged before investigation can begin but prior to such lodging of F.I.R. there cannot be any kind of investigation as there is no such provision in the Code. Learned counsel submits that in the trap case only Rs. 60,000/- was recovered which was alleged to be bribe taken by the son-in-law of the petitioner but the amount of Rs. 2,81,500/- was not a subject matter of the said trap case. 4. Learned counsel submits that in the trap case only Rs. 60,000/- was recovered which was alleged to be bribe taken by the son-in-law of the petitioner but the amount of Rs. 2,81,500/- was not a subject matter of the said trap case. 4. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that both the applications before the Court as well as the present petition under Section 482 of the Code are misplaced for the simple reason that the money the petitioner seeks to be released in her favour has been recovered at the behest of her son-in-law after he was caught in the trap case and taken to the house in question. It is further submitted that the said amount has been reflected in the seizure list prepared in the Special Case No. 65 of 2006/Vigilance Case No. 78 of 2006 and thus there was no occasion for a substantive case to be lodged as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that on the basis of materials gathered during the investigation of the substantive case it has come to light that the son-in-law of the petitioner has acquired disproportionate assets and thus in the background of the same, a substantive case alleging disproportionate assets has been lodged on 30th January, 2013. It is submitted that the amount recovered on the basis of search made by the Vigilance pursuant to the petitioner having been caught in a trap case, the release in favour of the petitioner of the amount would tantamount to the Court declaring that such money belonged to the petitioner and not to her son-in-law, which at the present stage is not in the scheme of things since the same has to be proved in a proper trial. It is further submitted that once a substantive case has been lodged for disproportionate assets under the P.C. Act, the amount is the subject matter of that case and its release for the present shall not be in the interest of justice. It is further submitted that once a substantive case has been lodged for disproportionate assets under the P.C. Act, the amount is the subject matter of that case and its release for the present shall not be in the interest of justice. Learned counsel further submits that Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act read with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly stipulates that the burden of proving of a fact especially within the knowledge of the person lies upon him and thus in the present case, when the recovery has been pursuant to search conducted after the petitioner was caught taking bribe, the onus will lie on him as well as anyone else who claims that the money belongs to him or her. In the present case without the said onus being discharged, this Court, according to learned counsel for the Vigilance, ought not to allow the prayer of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submits that the prosecution first has to discharge its onus of proving that the money belongs to the son-in-law of the petitioner and then the onus of proving the origin or legality of the money shall rest with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the money is not a subject matter of the substantive Vigilance case and the Court itself had asked for a report from the Vigilance in that connection and upon the report being received the impugned order was passed. The Vigilance, thus, according to him, cannot take the plea that the same is subject matter of a case under the P.C. Act for disproportionate assets. He further submits that even the said disproportionate assets case has been lodged only after filing of the present application and much after passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay by the Vigilance to lodge any case for disproportionate assets i.e., almost six years, which also indicates that there was no material with the Vigilance against the petitioner or regarding the money which is sought to be released in her favour. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay by the Vigilance to lodge any case for disproportionate assets i.e., almost six years, which also indicates that there was no material with the Vigilance against the petitioner or regarding the money which is sought to be released in her favour. 6. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that the misconception and confusion created by the petitioner needs to be cleared inasmuch as on the basis of investigation done in Special Case No. 65 of 2006/Vigilance P.S. Case No. 78 of 2006, facts have come to light which have necessitated filing of the separate case for disproportionate assets. It is submitted that now the substantive case has been lodged of which the amount sought to be released is a subject matter, this Court may not interfere. He further submits that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the investigation referred to in the impugned order is not an investigation under the Code and the term has been loosely used for arriving at a conclusion so as to lodge a substantive case for disproportionate assets. Thus, the facts and materials available before the Vigilance which were gathered during investigation were being looked into so as to take a decision with regard to lodging of a substantive case under the P.C. Act which has subsequently been done on 30th January, 2013. Learned counsel submits that in such view of the matter, the petition for release of the money was not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner as it has been seized on the basis of search conducted against the son-in-law of the petitioner subsequent to him being caught in a trap case accepting bribe. It is submitted that any interference at the present stage would amount to declaration of the fact that the money belonged to the petitioner and not to the public servant (son-in-law of the petitioner) who was caught taking bribe and against whom there is a vigilance case and also a case for disproportionate assets under the P.C. Act. It is submitted that any interference at the present stage would amount to declaration of the fact that the money belonged to the petitioner and not to the public servant (son-in-law of the petitioner) who was caught taking bribe and against whom there is a vigilance case and also a case for disproportionate assets under the P.C. Act. Learned counsel has submitted that as far as delay is concerned, though there is some delay but for the same, the son-in-law of the petitioner is also partly responsible as he himself has as late as in January, 2013 given an application to the Vigilance seeking time for submitting details of assets in the required pro forma with regard to his assets. He thus submits that when the son-in-law of the petitioner himself was delaying providing information, which under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was within his knowledge as it related to his assets, the Vigilance taking time to arrive at the conclusion that the case for disproportionate assets under the P.C. Act was required to be lodged, cannot be faulted. He submits that in any view of the matter, the technicalities raised on behalf of the petitioner are not of such a nature so as to prove fatal for the prosecution. 7. Upon considering the rival contentions, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the Vigilance. Besides the petition being misplaced on behalf of the petitioner since the money was seized in connection with the Vigilance case against the son-in-law of the petitioner and there being nothing on record to show as to how the petitioner claims ownership and seeks for release in her favour, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that without there being a substantive F.I.R., no investigation can be lodged under the Code even in the matter under the P.C. Act is also not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the investigation having already been completed in the substantive Vigilance case, any decision which warrants lodging of a separate case under the P.C. Act based on materials collected during investigation of the substantive Vigilance case, as in the present case, cannot be faulted. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Sah (supra) has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.