Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – Instant Petition has been filed for quashing order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XXIV, Patna, in Special Case No. 11 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S Case No. 26/2016 by which the discharge petition dated 30.04.2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the offences under Section 13 (2) read with Section 1 (e) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been rejected. 2. Facts giving rise to this case is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Food and Consumer Protection Department, Patna. At the time of institution of FIR, the petitioner was posted as Marketing Officer at Lalganj, Vaishali. However, he retired from service in February, 2017. FIR was instituted on 10.03.2016 considering the check period in between 1992 to 2012. As per the FIR, the total assets in terms of amount comes to Rs.1,81,86,267/-. Further, according to the prosecution, Total Income (Approximate) of the petitioner during the check period was Rs.94,34,000/-. Hence, as per the prosecution Rs. 87, 52,267/- (Rs. 1,81,86,267 - Rs.94,34,000/-) becomes excess, which is disproportionate to the income of Bhola Giri. It is alleged in the FIR that after institution of the FIR, the Police investigated the case and submitted Charge Sheet on 25.12.2018 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Petitioner. On perusal of the Charge Sheet, it transpires that the total income of the Petitioner has been derived as Rs.3,79,20,532/-, whereas total expenditure of the Petitioner has been assessed as Rs.4,66,29,645/- and accordingly the excess income being disproportionate has been computed as Rs.87,09,113/-. It is stated that the check period in the charge sheet has been taken from 06.01.1992 to 11.03.2016. 3. While controverting the allegations, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is stated that while computing the income of the Petitioner, the Investigating Officer erroneously left out the income from Agriculture prior to the year 2007, which was already computed by the earlier Investigating Officer as Rs.9,45,567/- which finds mention in paragraph no.150 of the Case Diary wherein a detailed Flow- Chart showing the Income & Expenditure of the Petitioner has been prepared. The Investigating officer, while submitting charge sheet, has only included Rs.13,47,450/- of the period 2005-06 to 2015-16 in the income of the petitioner but has erroneously left his earlier income from agriculture which is about Rs.9.45,567/-. The earlier computed income from Agriculture upto 2006 was Rs.9,45,567/-. If this income is added with the total income of Rs.3,79,20,532/- it would be Rs.3,88,66,099/-(Rs.9,45,567+ Rs.3,79,20,532). 4. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has also erroneously taken into account the expenditure of household items as Rs.9,40,700/- and also the expenditure of ornaments as Rs.30,54,962/-. There was no occasion to include the cost of clothes, furniture etc. of the household items. In the Indian culture, furniture and many household items are given as gift at the time of marriage and as far as the clothes are concerned, such expenditure cannot be accounted, as, such items are purchased during long tenure and already in regard to it Rs. 15,43,054/ has been taken into account as unaccounted expenditure. 5. It is next submitted that as far as the expenditure of ornaments is concerned, the total ornaments permissible as per the Income Tax Commissioner's Press Release dated 01.12.2016, limit for gold jewelry not to be seized is 500 grams for married lady, 250 grams for unmarried lady and 100 grams. for male members. There are two children of Petitioner, one being daughter and the other son. Hence the total limit is 500 grams for Sandhya Giri (wife), 250 grams for Ms. Arya Giri (daughter) and 100 grams each for Bhola Giri (Petitioner) and his son Saket Shriyam Giri. Total comes to 950 grams of gold. The total gold which includes the value of Silver and Diamond is about 918 grams, which is well within the permissible limit. This fact has been mentioned in paragraph no.153 of the Case Diary. It has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer that the Ornaments would not come under the preview of disproportionate assets. 6. Learned counsel submits that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that Collecting Jewelry of 918 gms. by a women and his family in the married life of about 30 years is not abnormal. It is a normal custom for woman to receive jewelry in the form of 'Stree Dhan' or on other occasions such as the birth of the child etc. by a women and his family in the married life of about 30 years is not abnormal. It is a normal custom for woman to receive jewelry in the form of 'Stree Dhan' or on other occasions such as the birth of the child etc. Moreover, there was no material on record for the Investigating Officer to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that the ornaments were 'Stree Dhan and gifts. In absence of any material to link these ornaments as having been acquired during the check period, it is impermissible to include their value in the expenditure. It is stated that as mentioned above the total of Rs.9,40,700/-(expenditure of household items) + Rs.30,54,962/- (Expenditure of ornaments) is Rs.39,95,662/-. If Rs.39,56,622/- is deducted from Rs.4,66,29,645/- then the total expenditure would come to Rs. 4,26,33,983/- To arrive at the excess income which would be disproportionate asset, Rs. 3,88,66,099/-(Total Income) is to be deducted from Rs.4,26,33,983/-, which would come to Rs.37,67,884/- 7. It is contended that that from the aforesaid calculation, it transpires that the excess income which is unexplained portion (disproportionate assets) is Rs. 37,67,884/-. The total income which was derived was Rs. 3,88,66,099/-. Ten percent of Rs. 3,88,66,099/- would be Rs.38,86,609.90/-. Hence the unexplained excess income which is Rs.37,67,884/ is much below 10 percent of the total income. It is also relevant to state here that the brother of the Petitioner on Affidavit (Annexure-4) has stated that the entire Agriculture Income of his share also is taken and utilized by the Petitioner. That income has not been added in the income of the Petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has acted as a Post Office and has not considered the contentions of the petitioner. In this connection, he has relied the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of (1) Kanchan Kumar vs. the State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 (9) SCC 577 [: 2022 (5) BLJ 373 (SC)] (2) M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Superintendent, reported in 1992(4) SCC page 45 and (3) Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1977 SC 796 . In para 33 of the decision in case of Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra) Hon’ble Supreme court has held that where the value of unexplained portion is less than 10% of the total income, it would not be proper to hold that the assets, found in the possession of the accused, were disproportionate to his known source of income. Paragraph 33 of the decision is reproduced herein below: – “33. It will, therefore, be seen that as against an aggregate surplus income of Rupees 44,383.59 which was available to the appellant during the period in question, the appellant possessed total assets worth Rupees 55,732.25. The assets possessed by the appellant were thus in excess of the surplus income available to him. but since the excess is comparatively small - it is less than ten per cent of the total income of Rs. 1,27,715.43 - we do not think it would be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to justify the raising of the presumption under sub-section (3) of Section 5. We are of the view that, on the facts of the present case the High Court as well as the Special Judge were in error in raising the presumption contained in sub-section (3) of Section 5 and convicting the appellant on the basis of such presumption.” 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance opposes aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits the check period although mentioned initially as 31.03.2012 based on the initial complaint it has been rightly extended up to 11.03.2016 which is the date of raid conducted by the Vigilance Department on the properties of the petitioner. Agriculture income of Rs. 9, 43,567/- up to 2006, claimed by the petitioner, as his legal source of income, but the petitioner has not produced an iota of evidence to support the same. The petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence to support the same. There is no documentary evidence to show how the petitioner has earned said agriculture income. No mandi receipts / no proof of whether the land was cultivated during that period and the land was used for which crops. The report obtained by 1.0. form the Circle Officer concerned during course of investigation merely states that the land is in joint possession of the petitioner and his brother. No mandi receipts / no proof of whether the land was cultivated during that period and the land was used for which crops. The report obtained by 1.0. form the Circle Officer concerned during course of investigation merely states that the land is in joint possession of the petitioner and his brother. 10. Besides this, petitioner has filed Income Tax return from 2005-2006 up to year 2015-2016 through HUF and has shown Rs. 13,47,50/- as agriculture income for the said period. However, apart from showing the said amount in IT return no documentary evidence whatsoever has been produced by the petitioner. Therefore, at Para 259 of the Case Diary, 1.0. has stated the agriculture income of the petitioner is Rs. 13, 47, 50/-. However, this can better be examined and verified during trial based on other evidences to be brought on the record. 11. With respect to recovery of 918 grams gold from the house of the petitioner in concerned, learned counsel submits that as per Income Tax Department’s norms, the petitioner is allowed to keep up to 950 gms of gold. But the same does not mean that the legality of purchase of the said gold need not be explained. So, legality of purchase needs to be explained by the petitioner. But, in the case in hand, no explanation/proof has been given by the petitioner. However, Investigating Officer has mentioned Rs. 30, 54,962/ as the price of the gold & Jewelry but this also needs to be explained by the petitioner by giving valid proof but no proof/documentary evidence has been given by the petitioner and the statement at Page 43 of the petition merely mentions the amount of jewelry held by the petitioner. That apart, basis of assessment of value of house-hold items to be Rs. 9, 40,700/- has also not been explained. 12. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that the ratio of disproportionate assets of worth Rs. 87, 09, 113/- have been found which are disproportionate to his legal source of income in the check period 06.01.1992 to 11.03.2016 and as per the charge sheet, they are 23% of the total income of the petitioner, and as such, ratio of the decisions in case of Krishna Nand Agnihotri (supra) and M. Krishna Reddy (supra) are not applicable in the present case. Furthermore, defence of the petitioner can only be tested by the Court below in course of trial. the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catenae of cases, has held that while hearing an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there should not be mini trial by the High Court. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of. (1) K. Ram Krisha vs. State of Bihar (2000)8 CC 547 Para 4 (2) State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suresh Ranjan (2014) 11 SCC 709 -Para 29 (3) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and Others. AIR 2023 SC 1987 [: 2023 (3) BLJ 52 (SC)] Para 4.1. and (4) State through Deputy Superintendent vs. R. Soundirarasu & Ors., of Police reported in (2023) 6 SCC 768 . 13. Lastly, he submits that the defence of the petitioner can only be tested by the court below in course of trial and at present allegations made in the FIR clearly makes out a case against the petitioner. He submits that in view of the foregoing submissions and the law laid down in several cases, the present quashing petition filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is fit to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Vigilance and on going through the materials available on records as well as law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, it is well established that the accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R. Soundirarasu (supra) has vividly held that at the stage of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case, put up by the prosecution, is groundless. In the instant case, as per the charge sheet, in the check period 06.01.1992 to 11.03.2016, petitioner is alleged to have amassed disproportionate assets of worth Rs. 87, 09, 113/- which is beyond known source of his income. 15. In the instant case, as per the charge sheet, in the check period 06.01.1992 to 11.03.2016, petitioner is alleged to have amassed disproportionate assets of worth Rs. 87, 09, 113/- which is beyond known source of his income. 15. In the present case, petitioner seeks quashing of order of the Court below dismissing his discharge petition on the ground that during check period from 6.1.1992 to 11.3.2016, while computing income of the petitioner, his income from the agriculture prior to the year 2007 amounting to Rs.9,45,567/- as well as expenditure of ornaments have not been included in the income and when the same is excluded from the total income of the petitioner, then the variation would be less than 10%. Learned counsel, in this regard, has referred to the decision in case of Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra) in which it has been held that where the value of unexplained portion is less than 10% of the total income, it would not be proper to hold that the assets found in the possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known source of income. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Vigilance has categorically stated that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in support his illegal source of income from 6.1.1992 to 11.3.2016. Similarly, petitioner has not explained the legality of purchase of 918 grams gold which was recovered from his house. 16. Issues raised by the petitioner are matter of defence which cannot be looked into while considering the discharge petition. While deciding the discharge petition, only materials brought on record by prosecution, is to be considered. Accused is entitled to discharge, if evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, cannot show that the accused committed offence. On careful scrutiny of the materials collected on the record, it appears that prima facie disproportionate asset case is made out against the petitioner. 17. On careful scrutiny of the materials collected on the record, it appears that prima facie disproportionate asset case is made out against the petitioner. 17. In view of the rival submissions of the parties and the position of law, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in order dated 6.02.2023, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XXIV, Patna, in Special Case No. 11 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S Case No. 26/2016, by which the discharge petition dated 30.04.2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the offences under Section 13 (2) read with Section 1 (e) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been rejected. 18. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.