JUDGMENT R.S. RAMANATHAN, J. 1. The petitioner filed this revision case challenging the order of the learned Special Judge (under the P.C. Act) Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry made in Cr. M.P. No. 1785 of 2014 in Special C.C. No. 1 of 2008, dated 16.12.2014. 2. The respondent police filed a final report against the petitioner (A.1), his son (A.2) and the petitioner's wife (A.3) stating that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short, P.C. Act) and A.2 and A.3 have Committed the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act 1988. The petitioner is A.1, A.2 is his son and A.3 was his wife. 3. A.3 died on 7.9.2009. Therefore, the charge against her abated. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioner and his son. The petitioner was charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. His son, A.2 was charge sheeted for offence under Section 109 of the IPC r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. 4. The petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 1785 of 2014 under Section 216 of the Cr. P.C. before the trial Court for alteration of charge on the ground that the petitioner was charged with the offence of having acquired assets in his name and in the name of his family members, namely, his son - A.2 and his deceased wife Vijayalakshmi - A.3, to the extent of Rs. P.C. before the trial Court for alteration of charge on the ground that the petitioner was charged with the offence of having acquired assets in his name and in the name of his family members, namely, his son - A.2 and his deceased wife Vijayalakshmi - A.3, to the extent of Rs. 3,75,30,221.11 which were disproportionate to his known source of income and the petitioner did not satisfactorily account for the same and in framing charges against the petitioner, the properties standing in the name of his wife Vijayalakshmi were also included and Vijayalakshmi is now dead and therefore, it cannot be stated that the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi was purchased by the petitioner and whether Vijayalakshmi purchased the properties from her income or not was within the special knowledge of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and as the said Vijayalakshmi died and the charge also abated against the deceased Vijayalakshmi, the properties which were standing in the name of Vijayalakshmi and which are included in the known source of income of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner acquired those assets in his wife's name are to be excluded and therefore, the charge has to be altered by excluding the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi. However, that petition was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner A.1. 5. Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially, the case was registered against three persons, namely, the petitioner, his son A.2 and his wife A.3 Vijayalakshmi and final report was also filed against three persons. After the death of Vijayalakshmi, the charge levelled against her was abated. While giving particulars of properties standing in the name of Vijayalakshmi, it was alleged that those properties were acquired by the petitioner in the name of the deceased wife Vijayalakshmi. After the death of Vijayalakshmi, the charge levelled against her was abated. While giving particulars of properties standing in the name of Vijayalakshmi, it was alleged that those properties were acquired by the petitioner in the name of the deceased wife Vijayalakshmi. Had Vijayalakshmi been alive, she would have produced evidence to the effect that she had the means to purchase those properties standing in her name and by reason of the death of Vijayalakshmi that opportunity is lost to the petitioner to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the prosecution and when the charge against Vijayalakshmi was abated by reason of her death, the properties standing in the name of Vijayalakshmi must also be excluded from the list of properties included in this case and the petitioner cannot be penalised when the person in whose name the properties stand is now dead and the charge against that person is also abated. In other words, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that once the charge is abated against the deceased Vijayalakshmi, the properties standing in her name must be excluded from the scope of the case and the petitioner cannot be charge sheeted for having acquired those properties which are disproportionate to his known source of income. He also reiterated that if Vijayalakshmi had been alive, she would have let in evidence to prove that those properties were purchased out of her own income and those properties standing in her name were not acquired by the petitioner and she did not hold those properties in her name as benami of the petitioner and that opportunity is lost and therefore, the properties standing in the name of Vijayalakshmi are to be excluded from the scope of trial and for that purpose, the charge is liable to be altered. He also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his contention:- 1. M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, (1992) 4 SCC 45 2. P. Nallammal and Another vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, (1999) 6 SCC 559 3. Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 577 4. Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 6. M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, (1992) 4 SCC 45 2. P. Nallammal and Another vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, (1999) 6 SCC 559 3. Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 577 4. Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 6. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to my notice the meaning of the word abatement by referring to P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon and submitted that as per the said Law Lexicon in criminal law, abatement of proceeding connotes their termination without any decision on the merits and without the assent of the prosecutor and when the proceeding is terminated against the deceased person, the properties standing in her name are to be excluded. 7. On the contrary, Mr. P. Mohan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the charges are framed on the basis of the statement recorded during investigation and while framing charges, the statement obtained during investigation alone are to be considered and probable defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration. He also submitted that it is specifically stated in the charge framed against the petitioner that during the period from 1st January, 1997 to 7th January 2006, the petitioner acquired the assets which were disproportionate to his known source of income. He had been in possession of pecuniary resources or properties in his name and in the name of family members, namely, his son A.2 and his deceased wife Vijayalakshmi to the extent of Rs. 3,75,30,221/- which were disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for and therefore, he committed the offence. He therefore submitted that a specific charge against the petitioner is that he acquired the assets which were disproportionate to his known source of income either in his name or in the name of his family members and therefore, a duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove that the petitioner acquired those assets in name of his wife and son and only after the prosecution discharges the burden, the accused would be called upon to prove that they had the means to purchase those properties without any support by the first accused and at this stage, the probable defence that might be taken by the abettors cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the charges cannot be altered by excluding the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi. He also submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased Vijayalakshmi had acquired those properties in her name by misusing official position of the first petitioner and in the final report, it is only stated that she abetted the petitioner in purchasing the properties in her name and it has been specifically stated in the final report as well as in the charge memo framed against the petitioner that the petitioner acquired those assets and therefore, the case of the prosecution must be considered and therefore, there is no need to alter or amend the charge sheet by excluding the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petition seeking to alter or amend the charge is highly belated. It is submitted that Vijayalakshmi died in the year 2009 and thereafter, charges were framed only against the petitioner and his son on 23.8.2011 and the petitioner did not take any steps to alter the charge immediately thereafter and now trial was over and the arguments of the public prosecutor was also advanced and the case was posted for the arguments of the defence and at this stage, the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. He also submitted that the petitioner filed Crl. O.P. No. 26272 of 2014 for transferring the case in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 2008 from the file of the Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Puducherry, to some other court and also filed Crl. R.C. No. 856 of 2014 and this revision was dismissed by this Court and during pendency of Crl. O.P. No. 26272 of 2014, he also filed Crl. O.P. No. 24323 of 2014 for alteration of charges and that petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial court for filing necessary application for alteration or amendment of charges framed against the petitioner and thus, the conduct of the petitioner would indicate that he was only interested in dragging on the proceedings and such a conduct cannot be encouraged and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. Considering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State, the following point arises for consideration. When a person is accused of acquiring properties in the name of another person who died subsequently, can charge be permitted to be altered so as to exclude the properties standing in the name of the deceased as the deceased would not be in a position to prove that she had the source of income to buy the properties in her own name and the properties were not acquired at the instance of the government servant? 9. To appreciate the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, we will have to see the charge framed by the trial Court against the petitioner and it is as follows:- "First, that you, A1-C Anandane, being a public servant, while employed as General Manager, PASIC (an undertaking of Government of Puducherry) and while holding the post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry during the period from 1st January 1997 to 7th January 2006 acquired assets which were disproportionate to your known sources of income you had been in possession of pecuniary resources or property in your name and in the name of your family members, i.e. Your son, A2 Ashok Anand and your deceased wife, Vijayalakshmi to the extent of Rs. 3,75,30,221.11 which were disproportionate to your known sources of income for which you could not satisfactorily account for and thereby committed an offence u/s. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable u/s. 13(2) of the said Act and within my cognizance." 10. In the final report filed by the respondent, the details of assets standing in the name of the second accused and the deceased Vijayalakshmi are stated and in the final report also, the petitioner is said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act and A.2 and the deceased Vijayalakshmi is said to have committed the offence under Section 109 of the IPC r/w 13(2) & 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the prosecution proceeded on the specific case that during the period from 1st January, 1997 to 7th January 2006, the petitioner acquired the assets which were disproportionate to his known source of income and he had been in possession of pecuniary resources or properties in his name and in the name of his family members, namely, A.2 and deceased Vijayalakshmi, which were disproportionate to his known source of income. Therefore, from the final report, it has been made clear that the properties standing in the name of the petitioner or his son or the deceased wife Vijayalakshmi were purchased by the petitioner and the petitioner was not able to satisfactorily account for the same and therefore, the petitioner committed the alleged offence. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has to first of all establish that the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi was acquired by the petitioner and once the prosecution was not able to establish the same, the petitioner is liable to be acquitted. Once the prosecution is able to prove that the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi was purchased by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to rebut the same. 11. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B. Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, is that assuming that the prosecution was able to prove that the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi were acquired by the petitioner, even thereafter, the person in whose name the properties stand can lead evidence to rebut the presumption or rebut the prosecution case. But, having regard to the fact that the person in whose name the properties stand died subsequently and such person cannot lead evidence to prove that the properties were acquired out of her own income and that opportunity of leading evidence to rebut the prosecution case is lost to the deceased and as a result, those properties which are standing in the name of the deceased person will be considered to be the properties of the petitioner and the petitioner will be convicted and that is against the principle of fair trial. Therefore, the properties standing in the name of the deceased are to be excluded and for that purpose, the charge sheet is liable to be altered. Therefore, the properties standing in the name of the deceased are to be excluded and for that purpose, the charge sheet is liable to be altered. Though the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appears to be attractive, having regard to the scheme of the Code relating to investigation, filing final report, framing of charges and the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted. 12. Under Section 154 of the Cr. P.C. every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing and that information is known as First Information Report and when a statement by any person discloses any criminal offence, a duty is cast upon any police officer to register the crime and investigate the case and record statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and after completing all formalities, a final report will be filed as contemplated under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. and thereafter, the accused shall be furnished with a copy of the police report along with other documents produced by the police and the details of charges framed. Section 211 of the Cr. P.C. requires disclosure of contents of charge. Section 112 of the Cr. P.C. states what particulars are to be mentioned in the charge sheet. 13. It is settled law that at the time of framing charge, the allegations made and the evidence collected by the police alone have to be taken into consideration and Courts need not have meticulous consideration of evidence at the stage of framing charge. 14. It is held in the judgment reported in 1982 SCC (Cri) 148 in the matter of Mohd. Akbar Dar and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, that at the stage of framing of charges, Courts need not have meticulous consideration of evidence and materials. 15. In the judgment reported in AIR 1954 SC 266 in the matter of Harihar vs. State of West Bengal, it was held that alteration can be done if there were materials before Court either in the complaint or in the evidence to justify the action. 16. 15. In the judgment reported in AIR 1954 SC 266 in the matter of Harihar vs. State of West Bengal, it was held that alteration can be done if there were materials before Court either in the complaint or in the evidence to justify the action. 16. In the judgment reported in AIR (50) 1963 SC 1696, Chittaranjan Das vs. State of West Bengal, it was held that the basic requirement in every criminal trial is that the charge must be so framed as to give the accused person a fairly reasonable idea as to the case which he is to face, and the validity of the charge must in each case be determined by the application of the test, namely, had the accused a reasonably sufficient notice of the matter with which he was charged. 17. In the judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 2078 in the matter of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat, it is held that if during trial, the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so. 18. Bearing these principles of law in mind, we will have to see whether the present revision case filed by the petitioner is to be allowed. 19. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mohan, that at the time of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration and the evidence and the materials furnished by the prosecution collected during investigation and presented before the Court alone are to be taken into consideration. As stated supra, the case of the prosecution is very specific that the petitioner acquired assets in his name and in the name of his wife and failed to satisfactorily account for the same. Therefore, the prosecution proceeded on the basis that the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi or in the name of the second accused were acquired by the petitioner and which are disproportionate to his known source of income and he was not able to satisfactorily account for the same. Therefore, the prosecution proceeded on the basis that the properties standing in the name of the deceased Vijayalakshmi or in the name of the second accused were acquired by the petitioner and which are disproportionate to his known source of income and he was not able to satisfactorily account for the same. Therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot go into the probable defence of the accused that the accused in whose name the properties stand might have sufficient proof to prove that she had the means to purchase those properties without the aid of the petitioner. In other words, the evidence sought to be adduced by the accused cannot be taken into consideration while framing charge and therefore, for alteration or addition of charge also, the evidence that could be produced by the other accused during trial cannot be taken into consideration. Though it was not possible to plead rebuttal evidence by reason of death of the deceased that the deceased had the means to purchase those properties out of her own income, that cannot be a reason for altering the charge by excluding those properties in the name of the deceased person as the prosecution proceeded on the basis that those properties though stand in the name of the deceased person were acquired by the petitioner. Therefore, the probable defence of the accused person or the lack of opportunity to the accused to lead rebuttal evidence cannot be a reason for altering the charges. 20. This aspect can be viewed from different angle. It is settled law that when application is filed to quash the charge, the Court is bound to look into the materials produced by the prosecution during investigation and filed before the Court and the Court is not bound to consider the probable defence of the accused to quash the charge. The same principle can be applied to the alteration of charges and hence the probable defence or failure of opportunity cannot be considered at this stage. 21. In the judgment reported in (1999) 6 SCC 559 supra, it was held that two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it/them. 21. In the judgment reported in (1999) 6 SCC 559 supra, it was held that two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it/them. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb. 22. In the judgment reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45 supra, it is held as follows:- "6. An analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law. 7. To substantiate a charge under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely, (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused." 23. In the judgment reported in (2001) 2 SCC 577 supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with Section 113-B and 4 of the Evidence Act. 24. In the judgment reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with vicarious liabilities of the Directors or Partners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the judgments reported in (2001) 2 SCC 577 and (2012) 5 SCC 661 supra relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any help to the case of the petitioner. 25. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the judgments reported in (2001) 2 SCC 577 and (2012) 5 SCC 661 supra relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any help to the case of the petitioner. 25. In the judgment reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45 supra, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused. 26. But in this case, whether the prosecution has proved the case has to be decided by the Court while delivering judgment and at this stage, it cannot be stated that whether the prosecution has proved its case or not. Therefore, according to me, when a person is charged for having acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and was not able to satisfactorily account for the same, burden is heavily on the prosecution to establish first that assets were acquired by the government servant in his name or in the names of his relatives or other person and only thereafter, the rebuttal presumption can be given by the accused or another person and even assuming that the person in whose name the properties were purchased died subsequently, such properties cannot be excluded from the charges during trial as charges are framed only on the basis of the materials available and collected during evidence and charges cannot be amended or altered on the basis of probable defence that may be taken by the defence. Further, as rightly submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the petitioner did not take any steps to amend the charge sheet for the past 3 years and though final report was filed against the three accused, charge was framed only against the petitioner and his son. He will be acquitted of the charge if no case is made out against him. When the case was posted for arguments before the trial Court, he filed a Petition for altering the charges and that was also dismissed. Therefore, there was no bona fide on the part of the petitioner in seeking for alteration or amendment of the charge. 27. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the revision case. Accordingly, the Revision Case is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Therefore, there was no bona fide on the part of the petitioner in seeking for alteration or amendment of the charge. 27. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the revision case. Accordingly, the Revision Case is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. By order dated 22.12.2014, I extended time upto 31.01.2015 for the learned Special Judge to conclude the case but now having regard to delivering the judgment this day, the time granted by order of this Court dated 22.12.2014 is extended upto 16.02.2015.