ORDER : All the criminal revisions are filed by the State challenging the common order of discharge passed by the V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai made in Crl. MP Nos. 12627, 13089, 633, 634, 635 and 12628 of 2008 in CC.No.4 of 2007 dated 16.12.2009 and 09.04.2010. 2. The case of the prosecution are as follows :- Based on source information, a detailed enquiry in reference DE 61/2000/REV/KM was conducted against A1/C.Rajamani, formerly District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram and concurrence was obtained from the government for registration of a regular case and it was registered in Cr.No.10/AC/2002/CC-II. During the investigation it was found that A1 had acquired disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.27,79,355.45 (208%) which were acquired in the name of close relatives. 3. A case in crime No.10/AC/2002/CC-II for offence under Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 05.08.2002 against A1. During the course of investigation, it reveals that A1 had purchased properties in the names of the other accused A2/Arulanandam-father in law; A3/Vasanthi-wife of brother in law; A4/Balasundaram-brother in law; A5/A.S.Sundaramani-Brother in law; A6/C.Sundaramanickam-Brother and A7/Prabakaran-Sister son had abetted A1 to acquire resources and properties in their name out of the money derived by A1 through unknown sources. All the accused were examined by the investigating officer, with reference to the materials gathered during the investigation. A5/A.S.Sundaramani-Brother in law of A1 died during the course of investigation. A1 was given opportunity to furnish the details of the case in writing and to offer his explanation to the assets possessed disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extend of Rs.27,79,355.45 and the said reply was duly considered and certain portions of the explanation was accepted and it was finally concluded that A1 had acquired properties during the period between 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2001 disproportionately in his name and in the names of other accused from other sources of income. 4. Hence, charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 109 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A5 and A6 & A7 before the Principal Sessions/Special Judge Chennai on 05.01.2007 and the same was taken up on file as CC.No.4 of 2007. The copies of the documents submitted by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.PC was also furnished to all the accused under Section 208 Cr.PC. 5. The copies of the documents submitted by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.PC was also furnished to all the accused under Section 208 Cr.PC. 5. After filing of the charge sheet, all the accused filed separate petitions for discharge under Section 239 Cr.PC in Crl.MP.Nos.12627 & 13089 of 2008 and 633, 634 & 635 of 2009 and 12628 of 2008. The prosecution has also filed counter against each petitions. After hearing the arguments of the petitioners and the prosecution and after perusing the documents produced before the trial Court on either side, the trial Court passed common order on 16.12.2009 discharging A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7 and discharged A1 on 09.04.2010. 6. Aggrieved against the above said orders, the prosecution has filed criminal revisions before this Court in Crl.RC.Nos.592 to 596 of 2010 against A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7 and filed Crl.RC.No.658 of 2010 against A1. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that it is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to look into the final report filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.PC and the documents enclosed thereon in proper prospectives, which discloses prima facie case against the respondents/accused warranting framing of charges against them. He would further submit that it is too earlier to go into the merits of the case and the Court is not required to marshal the materials on record or to conduct roving enquiry, for appreciation of evidences or to evaluate the evidence by deciding its worth in credibility, and also prima facie to consider whether any sufficient materials available against the accused persons. 8. In support of his contentions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) relied on the following decisions :- 1. State of M.P. V. S.B.Johari and others, 2000 SCC (Crl.) 944. 2. State of Maharastra and others v. Thapa and others, 1996 SCC (Crl) 820. 3. Superintendent and Remembrances of legal affairs, WB v. Anil Kumar Bunja, 1970 SCC (Crl) 1038. 4. State (CBI) v. S.Bangarappa, 2001 Crl.LJ 111. 5. Hemchand V. State of Jharkahand, 2008 (5) SCC 113 . 9. In the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemchand Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (5) SCC 113 , wherein it is held that at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction, it would not weigh the evidences. 5. Hemchand V. State of Jharkahand, 2008 (5) SCC 113 . 9. In the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemchand Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (5) SCC 113 , wherein it is held that at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction, it would not weigh the evidences. It would only see whether a prima facie case is made out, whether a case of probable conviction for commission of offence is made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be its concern. At that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily not consider whether the accused would be able to establish his defense, if any. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) would further submit that the trial Court has failed to consider the scope of Section 239 Cr.PC and grossly erred in discharging the respondent without recording any valid reasons, therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 11. Further, the trial Court has not considered the principle laid down by the Apex Court in K. Ponnusamy V. State and the judgment of this Court in Preme V. State would clearly show that the prosecution establishes the fact that a public servant had acquired assets in the name of other persons, even without strictly proving the fact that the persons holding the properties are benamies of such public servant. 12. The above decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case in hand, the trial Court failed to consider the settled propositions of law and without considering the legal and factual aspects mechanically discharged the petitioners, as like in other offences. The reasons assigned in the order of discharge is not in consonance with the well settled principles. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Crl side) prays to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court. 13. The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) in support of the contention relied on the following judgments :- 1. Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 . 2. State of Tamil Nadu by Ins. Of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption v. N.Suresh Rajan and others, 2014 LW (Crl.) 781. 3. State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and others, (2001) MLJ (Crl.) 117. 4. Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 . 2. State of Tamil Nadu by Ins. Of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption v. N.Suresh Rajan and others, 2014 LW (Crl.) 781. 3. State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and others, (2001) MLJ (Crl.) 117. 4. Sundiram and others v. State by Inspector of Police, Saptur Police station, 1998 MLJ 422 . 5. Xavier v. Vincent Raj @ Maria Vincent Raj and others, 1995 LW (Crl.) 560. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents/A1 would submit that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has not considered the representation made by the respondent and falsely laid the charge sheet against A1 and other accused, respondents 3 to 6 are stranger to the respondent. The respondent has not considered source of income for the property acquired by the other accused out of their funds. Even the wife of A1 has filed income tax returns and shows all the source of income that she has purchased the property out of her own income. The trial Court after considering the above aspects and the facts of the case rightly discharged A1 and others from the charges. 15. Further, this Court by an order dated 30.09.2009 made in WP.No.11869 of 2009 set aside the impugned order of one third cut in pension and withholding of entire DCRG imposed on the petitioner. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court held that the charges levelled for procedural irregularity, the punishment which the petitioner has to undergo till his death and also, his family members, after his death, is totally unwarranted. Hence, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision. 16. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/A1 relied on the following decisions :- 1. DSP, Chennai v. K.Inbasagaran, (2006) 1 SCC 420 . 2. Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa, 2011 (4) LLN 454 (SC) and 3. A.P. Pillai v. The State rep by the Inspector of Police, SPE: CBI:ACB, Chennai, 2013 (3) MWN (Cr.) 62. 17. The learned counsel appearing for A2 to A4, A6 & A7 would mainly submit that no notice has been issued on A2 to A4, A6 & A7 and not given any opportunity to offer their explanations. A.P. Pillai v. The State rep by the Inspector of Police, SPE: CBI:ACB, Chennai, 2013 (3) MWN (Cr.) 62. 17. The learned counsel appearing for A2 to A4, A6 & A7 would mainly submit that no notice has been issued on A2 to A4, A6 & A7 and not given any opportunity to offer their explanations. The only allegation raised against these respondents is that they have abetted A1 to acquire resources and properties in their names out of the money derived by him through unknown sources. The prosecution has included the names of the respondents in the charge sheet and the trial Court after considering all the aspects rightly discharged the respondents from all the charges. In support of his submission he has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in A.P. Pillai v. The State rep by the Inspector of Police (cited supra). Hence, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petitions. 18. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the available records. 19. The allegation against the respondent/A1 who is a public servant is that he acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.27,79,355.45 which was acquired in the names of his close relatives. Further, the evidences collected during investigation reveals that the deceased A5/Sundaramani abetted A1 to acquire pecuniary properties out of the money derived through unknown sources. On perusal of the charge sheet against the respondents and the documents annexed therewith, shows that the A1 acquired disproportionate assets in the name of his relatives out of the money derived through unknown sources. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to require to see there is prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. It is held in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 that at the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 or while considering discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for Magistrate or Judge concerned to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability thereof, etc., It is at the trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the material, veracity of various documents and is free to take a decision one way or the other. 20. In the case of State of Delhi Vs. 20. In the case of State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi and others reported in (2001) MLJ (Crl) 117 wherein it is held that at the stage of framing charges under Section 239 and 240 Cr.PC, it is duty of the Court is not to examine and assess in detail materials placed before it, it has to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. Further, this Court in the catena of decisions also held under Section 239 Cr.PC upon considering the police report and the documents sent under Section 173 Cr.PC, after making such examination if the Magistrate feels that the charge against the accused is groundless, he shall discharge the accused after recording the reasons. Therefore, the Magistrate must be satisfied that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Considering the suspicious materials before the Magistrate is sufficient to frame charges against the accused persons. 21. In this case, after investigation, the police filed final report under Section 173 Cr.PC and the documents annexed therewith reveals prima facie case against the accused for the commission of offence under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and Section 109 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the other accused persons. 22. The learned counsel for the respondent/A1 referred to the decision of this Court dated 30.09.2009 in WP.No.11869 of 2009 wherein it is observed that as per the explanation to the second proviso to Rule 7(1)(a), such a notice is not required to the Government Servant, if that immovable property is not acquired from the resources of the Government Servant concerned. Hence, this Court quashed the Disciplinary proceedings. Whereas, in this case the main allegation is that public servant acquired immovable properties from the resources of the Government Servant in the name of his relatives, therefore, the above said proposition held in the writ petition is not applicable to this case. 23. It is settled position, if any decision is taken in the disciplinary proceedings the same will not bind on the criminal proceedings. Further, if the investigating agency is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the public servant, then the same can be tested during trial. 23. It is settled position, if any decision is taken in the disciplinary proceedings the same will not bind on the criminal proceedings. Further, if the investigating agency is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the public servant, then the same can be tested during trial. Therefore, at the stage of trial, the veracity and truthfulness of the evidences cannot be tested. 24. The facts in the case of DSP, Chennai v. K.Inbasagaran reported in (2006) 1 SCC 420 , the trial Court convicted the accused. As against the said order, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court acquitted the accused. The State took up the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of appeal and the Apex Court also justifies the order of acquittal. Now, the present case is in the stage of framing of charges, hence, the said decision will no way help the present case on hand. 25. In the case of Chittaranjan Das V. State of Orissa reported in 2011 (4) LLN 454 (SC) wherein the Government denied permission by holding that there was no prima facie case against the appellant to sustain the charges. In this case, the sanction was accorded against the A1/public servant, hence the said decision is not applicable to the present case on hand. 26. In the case of A.P. Pillai v. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2013(3) MWN (Cr.) 62 it is held that pre-requisite condition has not been complied with by the investigating officer that is so as to satisfy himself he called public servant to satisfactorily account. In the said situation, the final report filed by the investigating officer against the accused is invalid. Whereas, in the present case, opportunity to offer explanation has been given to A1/public servant, the investigating officer has also accepted portion of the explanation, the weightage of the explanation can be decided at the time of trial. 27. It is not necessary to issue notice to the the accused other than the public servant, when there is specific allegation against the public servant in his name or in the names of the family members and other third parties, he acquired properties out of the money derived through unknown source of the public servant. 27. It is not necessary to issue notice to the the accused other than the public servant, when there is specific allegation against the public servant in his name or in the names of the family members and other third parties, he acquired properties out of the money derived through unknown source of the public servant. A1 was abetted by the other accused mainly by the deceased A5/A.S.Sundaramani to acquire properties in his name and in the names of other family members which is disproportionate to the known source of income of A1. 28. On perusal of the records viz., FIR, charge sheet and the documents annexed therewith, the discharge petitions filed by the respondents/accused and the counters filed therein, the orders passed by the trial Court in the discharge petitions and the grounds of revisions, this Court finds that there are prima facie materials against the respondents to proceed further and also there are incriminating materials available in the records to frame charges against the respondents/petitioners, the trial Court failed to consider the above facts and gone beyond the scope of Section 239 Cr.PC. It is well settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of charges, the documents produced by the accused need not be looked into and also the defence taken by the accused need not be considered. The trial Court has to go by the final report and the documents sent to the Court under Section 173 Cr.PC. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion, that the Special Court erred in allowing the discharge petition filed by the respondents/accused. A perusal of final report and documents annexed with would clearly show that the revision petitioner alleged disproportionate assets and abetments against the respondents. Therefore, at the stage of framing of charges the Special Judge is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for framing charges against the accused, the Special Judge is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials because the Special Judge must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. For the afore mentioned reasons the orders of the Special Judge are liable to be set aside. 29. For the afore mentioned reasons the orders of the Special Judge are liable to be set aside. 29. In the result, all the criminal revisions are allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Special Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.Nos.12627 & 13089 of 2008 and 633, 634 & 635 of 2009 and 12628 of 2008 in CC.No.4 of 2007 dated 16.12.2009 & 09.04.2010. Since, the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year of 2002, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main case as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months in accordance with law, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.