JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 397 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge at Ariyalur in CMP.No.1 of 2016 in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2012.) 1. The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 397 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge at Ariyalur in CMP.No.1 of 2016 in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner/accused Kathalingam is a native of Kannukudy Village in Orathanadu Taluk, Tanjore District. His father's name is Veerappa Solingarayar and his mother is Tmt. V.Pakkiyathammal. He is the second son of his parents. His elder brother V.Kaliyamoorthy is doing agricultural work at Kannukudy village. He completed his B.E., in the year 1989 and he entered into service in 1994 as Junior Engineer, Chozan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. Then, he was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II on 09.02.1995 at Perambalur Unit office. He married one Rani (the petitioner herein and arrayed as a second accused in Spl.C.C.No.15/2012 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge at Ariyalur) and she is the daughter of Ventrikondan of Jayankondam in Perambalur District on 25.05.1990 and she is a house wife and does not do any business. They have three children viz.,Kanmani, Nandini and Master Kamalnath and all of them are studying at Modern Matric Higher Secondary School, Jayankondam during the check period. 3. After his marriage, the said Kathalingam migrated from Kannukudi village to Jayankondam which is his father-in-law's place. While he was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II, Perambalur, Tiruchy, Thanjavur and Cuddalore. He purchased a number of housing plots, vehicles and constructed two houses in the name of his wife (A2), the present petitioner herein at Jayakondam during the period from 09.02.1995 to 31.10.2002. Hence, the check period was fixed between 09.02.1995 and 31.10.2002. In the beginning of the check period, the value of assets and pecuniary resources that stood to the credit of husband and wife was only Rs.2,43,000/-. But at the time of end of the check period, the value of assets and pecuniary resources that stood to the credit of the petitioner herein and her husband was Rs.77,58,268/-. In the beginning of the check period, the value of assets and pecuniary resources that stood to the credit of husband and wife was only Rs.2,43,000/-. But at the time of end of the check period, the value of assets and pecuniary resources that stood to the credit of the petitioner herein and her husband was Rs.77,58,268/-. When the income derived by the accused including the salary of the petitioner's husband and income from all the sources during the check period was Rs.21,81,230/-, the expenditure incurred by her and by her entire family during the check period was Rs.16,72,367/-. Thus, a total disproportionate assets stood at the end of the check period works up to Rs.70,04,414/- and the percentage of disproportionate assets is Rs.321%. 4. Final Opportunity Notice was also issued to the petitioner's husband / A1 for giving his explanation in regard to the disproportionate assets that stood to the credit of himself and his wife. For this, the husband of the petitioner / A1 has submitted his reply and his reply was duly considered by the Investigating Officer with reference to the available record. Further, the Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of both the accused. Therefore, a criminal case has been registered against the Kathalingam, the public servant and his wife, the petitioner herein by the respondent in Cr.No.8/AC/2006 u/s.13 (2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 24.07.2006. During the investigation, it has been found that the petitioner herein actively aided and assisted her husband, the public servant A1, to acquire properties in her name i.e., both movable and immovable during the check period which is disproportionate to the known sources of their income and in this connection, Investigating Officer has collected both the oral and documentary evidence to prove that both the petitioner and her husband Kathalingam, the public servant acquired disproportionate assets beyond their known sources of income which they could not properly account during investigation. 5. After investigation, the charge sheet has been laid by the respondent before the CJM/Special Judge, Perambalur against the public servant A1, Kathalingam and his wife. 5. After investigation, the charge sheet has been laid by the respondent before the CJM/Special Judge, Perambalur against the public servant A1, Kathalingam and his wife. In the FIR and charge sheet, the public servant Kathalingam has been arrayed as accused A1 and his wife, the present petitioner has been arrayed as A2 u/s.13 (2)r/w.13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 for having been found in possession of disproportionate assets exceeding their known sources of income during the check period. The same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2012. 6. After perusing the materials collected and presented by the investigation officer through the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., hearing both sides, the trial court concluded that there is ground to proceed further as against the accused. When the matter for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, came up for consideration for framing of charges, the present petitioner has filed discharge petition in CMP.No.1/2016 in Spl.C.C.No.15/2012 on the file of CJM, Spl/Judge, Ariyalur. After hearing the discharge petition, the CJM/ Spl/Judge, Ariyalur. has dismissed the petition on 25.02.2016. Against the said order of dismissal, the present petitioner herein has filed this revision petition before this court. 7. The case of the Revision Petitioner is that she is an income tax assessee and she is having independent income and she has purchased all the properties, which stands in her name, out of her own income and she has not purchased any property from the income of her husband, the public servant. The Investigation Agency has not accepted her contention and falsely implicated her in this case as abator to the public servant/ A1. Since she has purchased the property out of her own income and further she never made any abatement to the public servant and she has filed income tax returns and the same has not been considered by the Investigating Officer. She has not committed any offence u/s.109 of IPC r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no material to show that the property stands in her name are purchased out of the funds of her husband. She is not a public servant and no notice has been served by the Investigating Officer to explain her source of income for the said purchase and therefore, she filed a discharge petition before the CJM/Special Court, Ariyalur. 8. She is not a public servant and no notice has been served by the Investigating Officer to explain her source of income for the said purchase and therefore, she filed a discharge petition before the CJM/Special Court, Ariyalur. 8. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is a public servant and A2 the present petitioner is the wife of the said public servant. During the check period i.e., between 09.02.1995 and 31.10.2002, the value of the assets of the pecuniary resource that stood to the credit of the petitioner/A2 and her husband was only Rs.2,43,000/- But, at the end of the check period i.e., on 31.10.2002, the value of the assets and pecuniary resources that stood to the credit of the petitioner/accused her husband is Rs.77,58,216/-. When the income derived by the accused during the check period i.e. between 09.02.1995 and 31.10.2002 was Rs.21,81,230/- expenditure incurred by her and by the petitioner's family during the check period Rs.16,72,367/-. Thus, the total disproportionate assets stood at the end of the check period works out to Rs.70,04,414/- and the percentage of disproportionate assets is 321%. 9. Final Opportunity Notice was also issued to the public servant/A1 for giving his explanation in regard to the disproportionate assets that stood to the credit of himself and his wife. For this, petitioner's husband/A1 has submitted his reply and the same was duly considered by the Investigating Officer with reference to the available records. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of both the public servant and the present petitioner. From the final report statements recorded u/s.161 of Cr.P.C., and other documents, it is found that there is a prima facie case against the accused that the petitioner abated her husband in committing criminal misconduct by aiding in acquiring properties in her name and actively assisting him in holding the properties on behalf of her husband which they could not satisfactorily account. Therefore, there is enough materials to frame the charge against this petitioner and the trial court has considered the entire materials and rightly dismissed the petition to discharge this petitioner/A2. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the revision petitioner herein is an income tax assessee and she is having separate income. Therefore, there is enough materials to frame the charge against this petitioner and the trial court has considered the entire materials and rightly dismissed the petition to discharge this petitioner/A2. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the revision petitioner herein is an income tax assessee and she is having separate income. The property stands in her name was purchased out of her own income and no notice has been given by Investigating Officer to explain the source of income for the property purchased in her name. This fact has not been considered by the trial court and it simply dismissed the petition. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the petitioner is the wife of the public servant / A1, during the check period, they have purchased so many properties as mentioned in the schedules and the notice was given to public servant. When the final opportunity notice was given to the public servant for giving his explanation regarding expenditure incurred disproportionate of assets that stood to the credit of himself and his wife, the public servant has given a reply and the same was duly considered and statements also recorded from both these petitioner and her husband, the public servant. The Investigating Officer was not satisfied with the explanations given by the public servant and therefore, registered the case and there is a prima facie materials to frame the charge. 12. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully. 13. From the available records, it is an admitted fact that A1 is public servant and he is working as a Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II at Perambalur Unit office. The present petitioner is his wife and the check period is between 09.02.1995 and 31.10.2002 and during the said period some of the properties have been purchased in the name of their family members. 14. The case of the prosecution is that A2 abated her husband, the public servant/A1 and she has purchased the property in her name and actively assisted in holding the properties on behalf of her husband, which they could not satisfactorily account. Therefore, she has committed criminal misconduct and abetment. 15. 14. The case of the prosecution is that A2 abated her husband, the public servant/A1 and she has purchased the property in her name and actively assisted in holding the properties on behalf of her husband, which they could not satisfactorily account. Therefore, she has committed criminal misconduct and abetment. 15. The case of the petitioner is that she has purchased the property out of her own income and she is an income tax assessee and she has not purchased any property out of the income of her husband and she never aided her husband to do any illegal activities. 16. As stated earlier, A1 is a public servant and A2 is the wife of the public servant. During the check period, the properties have been purchased in her name and that the check period is fixed between 09.02.1995 and 31.10.2002. The prosecution has come to the conclusion that there is a disproportionate assets during the check period. Though the final opportunity notice was given to the public servant, husband of the petitioner, she has not given any reply satisfactorily and also statements were recorded from both the accused. The statements given by them is also not correct statement. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is an income tax assessee out of her own income has purchased the property is not a acceptable one at this stage. 17. No doubt, the benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused. But at the stage of framing charges under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the prosecution. Even a suspicion drawn on incriminating materials is enough to frame a charge against the accused. At this stage, this court can have the impression that she or he might have committed the offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials cannot be tested. 18. In the instant case, the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigation officer has not received the documents produced by the petitioner. If the investigation officer accepts the documents produce by the petitioner and consider it will prove that the petitioner has got independent source of income. 18. In the instant case, the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigation officer has not received the documents produced by the petitioner. If the investigation officer accepts the documents produce by the petitioner and consider it will prove that the petitioner has got independent source of income. The learned counsel for the petitioner further would submit that the petitioner now is ready to produce all those records before the investigation agency and this court has got power to give direction to receive those records and consider the same. But materials produced by the prosecution shows that final opportunity notice was given to the public servant the husband of the petitioner A1 he has also made his submission and further both the accused have also given statements and failed to account properly for the property purchased during the check period 19. In a case instituted upon police report, the court is required at the time of framing of charge, to confine its attention to the documents mentioned in Section 173 Cr.P.C., only. Ordinarily, the documents filed by the defence cannot be considered in framing charge. In fact, the hearing provided to the accused u/s.239 and 227 of Cr.P.C., is only in regard to the record of the case produced by the prosecution and the documents submitted therewith. Further, the court is not expected to go in to the probative value of the materials on record, nor required to discuss every material placed before it by the police along with the charge sheet. At the time of framing the charges, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular witness is unreliable. 20. Admittedly, the petitioner is wife of the public servant A1 she has purchased the properties during the check period. Under the said circumstances, at this stage court need not look into the documents would be produced by the petitioner. After framing the charges, the petitioner can prove her innocence during the trial in accordance with law. On face of the records the petitioner has no merits in the revision petitioner. On perusal of the order of the trial court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge has discussed everything in the said order. This court comes to an irresistable and in escapable conclusion that there are enough materials in the form of records to bring home the role played by the petitioner. On perusal of the order of the trial court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge has discussed everything in the said order. This court comes to an irresistable and in escapable conclusion that there are enough materials in the form of records to bring home the role played by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition filed by the revision petitioner/A2 before the trial court seeking to discharge her from the case in Spl.C.C.No.15/2012 in Cr.No.8/AC/2006 u/s.13 (2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 24.07.2006 is per se not maintainable. Looking at from any angle, the order passed by the trial court, in dismissing the Crl.MP.No.2768/2016 in Spl.C.C.No.15/2012 dated 25.02.2016 does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent legal infirmity in the eye of law. Hence, the criminal Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. In fine, the criminal revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial court in Crl.MP.No.2768/2016 in Spl.C.C.No.15/2012 dated 25.02.2016 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.