JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal Main Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, lays challenge to order dated 27.6.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in case No. UTR/CR No.5/2017, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Pushpinder Singh, whereby recommendation for cancellation of FIR No.5/13, dated 5.4.2013 made by Superintendent of Police, SV & ACB, Dharamshala, has been declined. 2. Reply of the respondent filed on the affidavit of Superintendent of Police, SV & ACB, Dharamshala, reveals that report No.01/2012 (DMA) 987,dated 112-01-2012 was received in police Station SV & ACB, Dharamshala from the Office of Vigilance Headquarter, Shimla against the petitioner herein with the direction to verify the allegations levelled in the source report. In the complaint, complainant alleged that petitioner herein collected wealth beyond his known sources of income. Complainant alleged that petitioner herein has no other earning member in his family, but he has specious house, luxurious household and has also a luxurious car. Complainant also alleged that petitioner herein repaid loan amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- within a year. 3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, inquiry was conducted by Sub Inspector Geeta Prakash and Jagdish Chand. During the course of inquiry, 43% disproportionate assets were found, hence FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the present petitioner. During investigation, 9.38 % disproportionate assets were found unaccounted from the known sources of the income of the accused and therefore keeping in view 10% margin of disproportionate assets a closure report came to be submitted in the Court of learned Special Judge, Dharamshala. However, learned Special Judge, Dharamshala vide impugned order dated 27.6.2019 declined to accept the aforesaid closure report. In the aforesaid background, petitioner against whom FIR, as mentioned hereinabove, came to be lodged on the basis of source report, as referred hereinabove, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to accept the closure report after setting aside the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds that impugned order passed by learned Special Judge, Dharamshala, declining to accept the cancellation report is wholly untenable. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds that impugned order passed by learned Special Judge, Dharamshala, declining to accept the cancellation report is wholly untenable. In para-6 of the impugned order, learned Court below has itself recorded that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnanand versus State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 796 , benefit of doubt for possessing disproportionate assets upto 10% increase of the known source of income can be given to the accused, but even thereafter it refused to accept the cancellation report filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency on the ground that discretion to grant benefit of doubt lies only with the Court after evaluating the evidence led by the prosecution before the Court. 5. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law because Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment, referred hereinabove, has categorically held that benefit of doubt of possessing disproportionate assets upto 10% increase of the known source of income can be given to the accused, but as far as power to extend benefit of doubt, as referred above, is concerned admittedly, same lies with the Court. In the case at hand, careful perusal of closure report filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency, clearly reveals that Investigating Officers after having made detailed investigation made a report stating therein that 9.38% disproportionate assets are unaccountable from the known source of income of the accused and as such, keeping in view the 10% margin of disproportionate assets, benefit is required to be given to the accused. But close scrutiny of cancellation report nowhere suggests that Investigating Officers have extended any benefit of doubt, rather in their own wisdom they have submitted cancellation report to the Court, enabling it to pass appropriate orders. 6. Needless to say, discretion to accept or reject cancellation report, if any, filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency solely lies with the Court concerned, but such decision is usually taken after evaluating the report vis-a-vis material placed on record alongwith closure report. 6. Needless to say, discretion to accept or reject cancellation report, if any, filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency solely lies with the Court concerned, but such decision is usually taken after evaluating the report vis-a-vis material placed on record alongwith closure report. Careful perusal of closure report filed in the instant case, clearly reveals that complete details with regard to assets owned and possessed by the petitioner herein during check period w.e.f. 1.1.2004 to 31.3.2012 have been furnished, but it appears that learned Court below without going into the details given in the closure report, arrived at a erroneous conclusion that since Investigating Agency has given benefit of doubt, applying the principle of 10% margin of disproportionate assets, closure report cannot be accepted. 7. True, it is that discretion, if any, to grant/extend benefit of doubt lies with the Court concerned, but definitely there is no embargo/bar for the party against whom complaint is filed to raise such plea at the time of consideration of closure report because if at the time of consideration of closure report, court after having carefully perused the recommendation made in the closure report vis-a-vis material placed before it, comes to the conclusion that person concerned has possessed disproportionate assets upto 10% increase of the known source of income, it can always proceed to accept the cancellation report and thereafter discharge the person against whom case for having acquired disproportionate assets to the known source of income is registered. 8. Having carefully perused the impugned order, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned Court below has gone astray while considering the prayer made on behalf of the Investigating Agency to accept the cancellation report wrongly presuming that Investigating Officer has extended/granted benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas as has been observed above, Investigating Officers have simply made recommendation for cancellation report, stating therein that during the investigation petitioner has been found to have possessed/acquired 9.38 % disproportionate assets from the known source of his income. Learned Court below while passing the impugned order has not gone into the reasoning assigned by the Investigating Agency while drawing the aforesaid conclusion with regard to acquisition of 9.38% disproportionate assets to the known source of income by the petitioner/accused. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27.6.2019 is quashed and set-aside. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27.6.2019 is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Court below to consider the cancellation report filed by the Investigating Agency afresh taking into consideration the law on the point as well as observations made by this Court in the instant judgment. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of