JUDGMENT B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the A.C.B. 2. Instant application has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2018 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.871 of 2018 by which application for discharge was dismissed relating to Vigilance P.S. Case No.43 of 2013 corresponding to Vigilance (Special) Case No.46 of 2013 passed by Special Judge, A.C.B., Ranchi. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that Department of Income Tax, Ranchi raided the premises of petitioner''s brother namely Deonish Kiro, an officer belonging to Jharkhand Administrative Service and found evidence of disproportionate assets relating to check period June, 1990 to 17.02.2009. During the raid, cash, jewelleries showing investment in bank, L.I.C. etc. were found. The Income Tax Department informed the Vigilance Department and thereafter case of disproportionate asset were registered against the brother of this petitioner and charge-sheet was submitted against Mr. Deonish Kiro as well as supplementary charge sheet was also submitted against this petitioner under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the court below took cognizance against this petitioner vide order dated 24.08.2017. Actually, Anti Corruption Bureau did not initiated the proceeding but had acted after the information supplied by the Income Tax Department soon after the raid was conducted in the house of brother of this petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it is not a case of misuse of official position but it is a case of less declaration of income and less payment of tax to the Income Tax Department. The property shown in the name of petitioner was a joint family property. The petitioner also employed in a local college living separately, having his own source of income and paying the income tax since 2003-04. It was also submitted that Income Tax Department has assessed additional income to his credit on the ground that the source of income was from his brother Deonish Kiro. Against that order, this petitioner had approached Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi who found that there is no basis to treat the assessee''s undisclosed income as that of Deonish Kiro. There is no presumption in law that if the brother shows undisclosed income that should be assessed as undisclosed income of the brother. Against that order, this petitioner had approached Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi who found that there is no basis to treat the assessee''s undisclosed income as that of Deonish Kiro. There is no presumption in law that if the brother shows undisclosed income that should be assessed as undisclosed income of the brother. He relied on a decision of K.C. Builders & Another Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , (2004) 2 SCC 731 and submitted that conclusion of income tax proceeding exonerating the assesse shall conclude the criminal proceeding arising out of the same. Hence, no case is made out against the petitioner and order of discharge should have been passed in this case but the court below without considering all these materials dismissed the application for discharge vide order dated 24.09.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that F.I.R. was instituted after raid conducted by the Income Tax Department in the premises of his elder brother Deonish Kiro on 07.02.2009 who at the relevant time was an officer serving in the State of Jharkhand. This petitioner was living on the first floor of the house being possessed by his brother Deonish Kiro. During the check period, income of this petitioner from a private college had exceeded the investment made in banks and on purchase of jewelleries, motorcar, motorcycle and tractors. No registered sale deed or documents were produced during the enquiry that the gain was from the sale of land. No judicial stamp paper was used for effecting the sale deed of land. Since this petitioner has actively helped his brother Deonish Kiro in selling the ill-gotten property, therefore, he acted as an abettor. Therefore, Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been applied upon him. 6. Considering the above submission of the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that the court below by the impugned order has discussed the materials collected against this petitioner. The properties found in possession of this petitioner was neither shown in his income tax return nor his income from the private college was sufficient to support it. Several properties were purchased through cash and the income found was not in accordance with his known source of income. The properties found in possession of this petitioner was neither shown in his income tax return nor his income from the private college was sufficient to support it. Several properties were purchased through cash and the income found was not in accordance with his known source of income. The court below relying on the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Nallammal Versus State represented by Inspector of Police , (1999) 6 SCC 559 in which it was held that if a person not being public servant, is found to be abetting the commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, he can also be prosecuted in the same manner. On an elaborate discussion, the court below found prima facie sufficient material against this petitioner for framing of charge. 7. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order instant application is dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.