ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J: Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is the State through the Lokayukta Police, Bidar. The brief facts are as follows.–– The petitioner had charge-sheeted the accused-respondent in connection with the alleged offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused during his period of service as a public servant between 17-6-1968 and 31-3-2001 and while working in various capacities, amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is the claim that the accused possessed assets to the extent of Rs.57.47 lakhs and had spent a sum of Rs.35.88 lakhs totally amounting to Rs.93.36 lakhs, whereas, his known source of income was only Rs.56.93 lakhs. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused failed to account for the assets and expenditure over and above his known sources of income and therefore committed offences punishable as aforesaid. 3. It transpires that the respondent during the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court, filed an application seeking discharge, while taken up a plea that the information with regard to income and expenditure, based on his income tax returns furnished by him, was not considered by the Investigating Officer and that it has been suppressed while filing the charge-sheet. It was his further case that the annual returns furnished by him was not taken into consideration. The agricultural income and expenditure incurred by him in constructing his house at Gulbarga was also not considered, apart from disputing the valuation made by the expert in the technical wing of the Lokayukta Police with regard to the valuation of the house. These and other grounds were urged in the application. 4. The learned Special Judge after having heard both the parties, has allowed the application by a detailed order discharging the accused of the offence punishable as aforesaid and hence the revision petition. 5. These and other grounds were urged in the application. 4. The learned Special Judge after having heard both the parties, has allowed the application by a detailed order discharging the accused of the offence punishable as aforesaid and hence the revision petition. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would straight away draw attention to the order of the Court below and would point out that, on the face of it, it is evident that the Court below has proceeded to examine the materials that were made available, in great detail, particularly, the documents that were furnished by the respondent and which according to the respondent, had been suppressed by the prosecution and it is on a detailed analysis of the said documents, that the Court below has accepted the contention of the respondent in proceeding to discharge him. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the Court below is not in consonance with the express provision of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C.' for brevity) and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the interpretation of the said section. Firstly, he would draw attention to the language of Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. The text of which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "239. When accused shall be discharged.––If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing". 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would thus submit that, from a plain reading of the same, there is no reference to any possibility of the accused producing material at that stage and the Court addressing the same. Therefore, on the face of it, the Court could not have permitted the accused to produce material and the same could not have been weighed against the material produced by the prosecution, in deciding whether or not to frame the charge. The said exercise was outside the scope of Section 239 of the Cr. Therefore, on the face of it, the Court could not have permitted the accused to produce material and the same could not have been weighed against the material produced by the prosecution, in deciding whether or not to frame the charge. The said exercise was outside the scope of Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. He would submit that this is the law laid down by the Apex Court in regard to the interpretation of the scope of Section 239 of Cr. P.C. He would place reliance on the following three decisions of Supreme Court: (a) State by Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. S. Bangarappa, AIR 2001 SC 222 : (2001)1 SCC 369 : 2001 SCC (Crl.) 152 : 2001 SAR (Cri.) 32 (b) Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2008 SC 1903 : (2008)5 SCC 113 : (2008)2 SCC (Crl.) 537 : 2008 AIR SCW 2132 : 2008(4) SBR 279; (c) State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 : (2005)1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Crl.) 415 : 2005 AIR SCW 6313. The Counsel would contend that, having regard to the settled position of law, the present petition would have to be allowed and the matter be remanded for a fresh consideration by the Trial Court in accordance with law. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent would seek to justify the order of the Court below and would point out that the material that was referred to by the Trial Court was certainly material that was available with the prosecution, but which it had willfully suppressed. Therefore, in the fitness of things, the respondent has merely placed the same on record, which is not disputed by the prosecution. The said documents were made available by the respondent in order to absolve himself of the false accusation, that was necessary to have been placed before the Court below as part of the record, since that had been withheld, the respondent having placed the same, cannot be characterised as documents, which are produced by the respondent taking the petitioner police by surprise. Therefore, the Court having referred to the same or having addressed the same as being in violation of the express tenor of Section 239 of Cr. P.C. is not tenable. Therefore, the Court having referred to the same or having addressed the same as being in violation of the express tenor of Section 239 of Cr. P.C. is not tenable. The Court below has not committed any illegality and has only referred to the material, which were certainly available with the petitioner, but which had been willfully withheld. 8. While there is a scope for the respondent to absolve himself on the basis of documents that have been referred to by the Court below and it admittedly have been furnished by the respondent, which would necessarily have to await the trial, for the Court below to weigh the material that may be available in his favour but which may not have been produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charges. The presumption at this stage would be that the prosecution in its wisdom, has closely examined the several material documents, as are relevant and has come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the income tax returns and other documents, which may even support the respondent, would not absolve him of the commission of the offence and therefore, the same not having been produced by the prosecution by itself would not allow the accused to place the same before the Court and enable the Court to look into the same. 9. Therefore, having regard to the language of Section 239 of Cr. P.C. and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court below having proceed to analyse the material documents that were before it and apart from referring to the documents produced by the accused was irregular. The Court below could not have proceeded to exercise its discretion in dealing with the merits and demerits of the documents produced by the prosecution and the accused, as if it was deciding the case on merits. That stage was yet to arrive. At the stage of framing charges, as spelt out under Section 239 of Cr. P.C., the Court can only consider the report and the documents sent with it by the police and afford an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused in either holding that the charge against the accused is groundless and record the reasons for doing so, or proceed to frame charges. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Court of Special Judge, Bidar for reconsideration of the report submitted by the prosecution along with the documents and to consider the case in accordance with law and to take further steps in accordance with law. Petition allowed.