ORDER : 1. The sole accused in C.C.No.11/2013 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks quashment of the said proceedings after dismissal of his discharge petition by the Special Court, as per Annexure V order, dated 28.01.2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused, who had worked as Chief Conservation Engineer, Archaeology Department, Director, Continuing Education, Director, VHSE, Thiruvananthapuram, as a public servant in between 01.01.2001 to 21.12.2009, possessed pecuniary resources worth Rs.46,14,918/-, out of which, pecuniary resources worth Rs.24,80,342/- was found disproportionate to his known source of income, for which, he could not satisfactorily account for. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in this matter, initially, there was an investigation and the same ended in finding “further action dropped” (FAD) report, since it was found during investigation that the assets in excess of the permissible limit was only 7.53%. But, at the instance of the prosecution, the Special Court ordered further investigation and based on which, the disproportionate asset, alleged to be held by the petitioner was calculated at 42.32%. The accused appeared before the Special Court on getting summons, based on the report showing wealth calculated at 42.32% and filed discharge petition. While so, the prosecution filed another petition for further investigation and the same culminated in the report, dated 30.03.2017 and thereby, the disproportionate asset in respect of the petitioner was found to be 38.72%. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, seeking further investigation in the matter, the petitioner filed Annexure VI petition and the same so far not acted upon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is anomaly in calculating the assets and if at all calculated, the percentage of the assets in excess of the permissible limits should have been 7.2% only, as per the calculation submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted further that, while considering the discharge petition, the trial court failed to consider the arguments tendered by the petitioner and therefore, the discharge plea would require re-consideration. It is submitted further that, while considering the discharge petition, the trial court failed to consider the arguments tendered by the petitioner and therefore, the discharge plea would require re-consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of the Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) KLT OnLine 3022 (SC) to contend that, at the stage of framing charge, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial and a strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as could be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The learned counsel also placed decision of the Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 KLT OnLine 2015 (SC) wherein it has been held that, if a view gives rise to suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the Court concerned is empowered to discharge the accused. The decision of the Apex Court in Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 KHC 6839 also has been placed by the learned counsel with reference to paragraph No.18, where the Apex Court held as under: “18. It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply it's judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Indeed, the Court has limited scope of enquiry and has to see whether any prima-facie case against the accused is made out or not. At the same time, the Court is also not expected to mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the broad probabilities of the case, weight of prima-facie evidence, documents produced and any basic infirmities etc. In this regard the judgment of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal , 1979 (3) SCC 4 can be profitably referred for ready reference. Having due regard to the documents placed before us and in the light of the submissions and discussion made above, we are of the considered view that sufficient grounds casting a grave suspicion on the Appellant, do not exist. Having due regard to the documents placed before us and in the light of the submissions and discussion made above, we are of the considered view that sufficient grounds casting a grave suspicion on the Appellant, do not exist. It is observed that the ingredients of alleged offences cannot be prima-facie established against the Appellant as neither had he been entrusted with funds of JSEB nor he had fraudulently or dishonestly deceived senior officials of the JSEB to cause any benefit to RPCL or any wrongful loss to JSEB and no evidence of illegal gratification or disproportionate assets has been found against the Appellant.” That apart, the decision of the Apex Court in Luckose Zachariah v. Joseph Joseph, 2022 (2) KLT 144 (SC) and the decision in Johnson v. State of Kerala, 2024 KLT OnLine 1802 have been placed by the learned counsel to substantiate that the legal position is not in dispute that when an initial report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and a supplementary report filed thereafter under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the court would have to take a considered view of both reports, in accordance with law, so as to ensure whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused had committed an offence. If the Court finds that cumulative effect of both reports would make offence/offences committed by the accused, prima facie, the court shall take cognizance of the offence/offences made out and proceed further. If the court finds when considering both reports in juxtaposition, no offence/offences made out prima facie against the accused, the court is bound to take a decision accordingly. 5. Opposing this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of the Apex Court in State through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 KHC 6920 with reference to paragraph Nos.75 to 78 with particular mention to paragraph No.78, where the Apex Court held as under: “78. The High Court has acted completely beyond the settled parameters, as discussed above, which govern the power to discharge the accused from the prosecution. The High Court could be said to have donned the role of a chartered accountant. This is exactly what this Court observed in the case of Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi (supra). The High Court has acted completely beyond the settled parameters, as discussed above, which govern the power to discharge the accused from the prosecution. The High Court could be said to have donned the role of a chartered accountant. This is exactly what this Court observed in the case of Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi (supra). The High Court has completely ignored that it was not at the stage of trial or considering an appeal against a verdict in a trial. The High Court has enquired into the materials produced by the accused persons, compared with the information complied by the investigation agency and pronounced a verdict saying that the explanation offered by the accused persons deserves to be accepted applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability. This entire exercise has been justified on account of the investigating officer not taking into the explanation offered by the public servant and also not taking into consideration the lawful acquired assets of the wife of the public servant i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein.” 6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, in this case, thorough investigation was conducted, since during initial check period, the assets found to be less than 10% and as per the first report filed, it was found that the assets, to be in excess possessed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that, during further investigation also, the assets held by the petitioner found to be 38.72%. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor further that, insofar as the statement submitted by the petitioner with reference to basic statement-B filed by the prosecution, as directed by this Court, a statement has been filed by the Investigating Officer as on 04.03.2022 and in paragraph Nos.14 to 19, the same was explained to justify the prosecution allegation. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, in the instant case, this Court cannot consider the contention raised by the petitioner without opting the procedure of trial and the contentions, at the instance of the petitioner, are matters of evidence. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor pressed for dismissing the petition, by confirming the order of discharge. 7. First of all, I shall refer Annexure V order whereby, the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition. In paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of Annexure V order, the learned Special Judge assigned reasons for dismissal of discharge petition, as under: “11. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor pressed for dismissing the petition, by confirming the order of discharge. 7. First of all, I shall refer Annexure V order whereby, the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition. In paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of Annexure V order, the learned Special Judge assigned reasons for dismissal of discharge petition, as under: “11. I have perused the entire records produced by the prosecution and the Basic statements ‘A’ to ‘F’ in the final report. A perusal of the case records would prima facie show that there are sufficient materials before the court to justify framing of the charge against the accused in respect of the offence u/s.13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the P.C.Act. The contention of the accused that certain items shown in Basic statements 'B' and 'D' are to be reduced is a matter for evidence during trial. It is a question of fact to be decided on trial. It is open to the accused to raise all such contentions during trial. 12. The materials produced by the prosecution would prima facie indicate that there are grounds for presuming that accused has acquired pecuniary resources and property beyond his known sources of income during the check period and as such committed criminal misconduct punishable u/s.13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the P.C.Act which is triable by this court and therefore this is not a case where the accused is entitled to get an order of discharge u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Hence the petition for discharge filed by the accused deserves dismissal, I do so.” 8. On perusal of the basic statement - F showing Disproportionate Asset calculation in respect of AO and family, the same is the following effect: BASIC STATEMENT - F Disproportionate Asset calculation in respect of AO and family 1. Asset held on 22.12.2009 8.75 cents of land and residential house + a total of 366.450 gm of gold ornaments + asset worth Rs.48,83,838/- 2. Asset as on 01.01.2001 8.75 cents of land and residential house + asset worth Rs.2,77,220/- + 366.450 gm of gold ornaments. 3. Asset acquired during the check period (Rs.4892738 - Rs.277820) Rs.46,06,618/- 4. Expense during the check period Rs.35,27,412/- 5. Total assets and expenses of the check period (3+4) Rs.81,34,030/- 6. Income during the check period Rs.58,63,522/- 7. Extend of disproportionate assets (5-6) Rs.22,70,508/- 8. 3. Asset acquired during the check period (Rs.4892738 - Rs.277820) Rs.46,06,618/- 4. Expense during the check period Rs.35,27,412/- 5. Total assets and expenses of the check period (3+4) Rs.81,34,030/- 6. Income during the check period Rs.58,63,522/- 7. Extend of disproportionate assets (5-6) Rs.22,70,508/- 8. Percentage (%) Disproportionate Asset x 100 Income (C) 38.72% Rs.22,70,508 x 100 Rs.58,63,552/- 9. According to the petitioner, the above calculation is incorrect and the calculation of Rs.63,02,918/- is the total assets and expenses of the check period and thereby, the amount shall be reduced to Rs.4,28,205/- and it is submitted that the assets in excess would come in excess 7.2% alone. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that, if the disproportionate assets would come to less than 10% of the total income, it could not be found that the assets found in possession of the accused were disproportionate and in this connection, the learned counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in Krishnanand Agnihotri v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 816 . 10. In the statement filed by the Investigating Officer as on 04.03.2022, in paragraph Nos.14 to 19, the Investigating Officer addressed the challenges raised by the petitioner limiting his income to the tune of Rs.4,28,205/- and negatived the same. Paragraph Nos.14 to 19 of the statement read as under: (14) It is submitted that on 18.05.2010 Dr. A.R.Babu (W-16) Managing Director of Heera Construction had produced the payment details of Heera Kinara Classic flat in the name of the Petitioner as Rs.22,70,000/- including the undivided shares of land, Apartment Cost, car parking cost and Apartment furnishing cost. This can be verified through Item No.30 of list of documents. But Dr.Babu produced another document (Item No.170 of list of documents) stated that Rs.23,90,000/- has received the agreement value which covers undivided shares of land, Apartment Cost, car parking cost, Apartment furnishing cost and registration. So an amount of Rs.23,90,000/- treated as the cost of the flat. Moreover in the special landed property statement submitted by the Petitioner he reported that an amount of Rs.23,98,927/- (item No.24 of list of documents) spent for the purchase of flat. (15) A house search was conducted in the residence of the Petitioner on 21.12.2009 (Item No.7). During the house search the articles of furniture, electrical and electronic gadgets of total worth Rs.4,61,885/- found in the residence. (15) A house search was conducted in the residence of the Petitioner on 21.12.2009 (Item No.7). During the house search the articles of furniture, electrical and electronic gadgets of total worth Rs.4,61,885/- found in the residence. Out of which articles of worth Rs. 88,200/- were possessed by the Petitioner and family as on 01.01.2001 i.e. beginning of the check period and remaining articles w/Rs.3,73,685/- is acquired during the check period. As articles w/Rs.88,200/- is shown as the asset at the beginning of the check period and hence articles w/Rs.4,61,885/- is shown as the asset at the end of the check period. (16) Another house search was conducted in the Flat No.13 Al Heera Kinara Classic at Kunnuvila Jn. Ulloor Village on 20.12.2012 as per the order of the Hon'ble Court. This flat is owned by the Petitioner and given to Smt. Geethakumari on rent. A search list was prepared (Item No.11 of list of documents). In the search articles of furniture, electric and electronic gadgets of worth Rs.6,28,760/- found in the flat which is owned by the Petitioner. This flat was purchased by the Petitioner on 12 th May 2004 i.e., 7 years back. In the house search it was revealed that articles of worth Rs.4,64,600/- were purchased before 7 years (before the beginning of the check period) and articles w/Rs.1,64,160/- acquired during the check period. As articles w/Rs.4,64,600/- is not cited in the list of assets at the beginning of the check period, only the articles acquired during the check period w/Rs.1,64,160/- (628760 - 464600) is shown as the asset at the end of the check period. Thus the cost of articles including furniture, electrical, electronic goods etc., comes to Rs.6,26,045/- (4,61,885 + 1,64,160) shown as the assets of the accused officer at the end of the check period. (17) It is true that the Petitioner paid Rs.29,400/- for the Membership of Sterling Holidays Resorts Pvt. Ltd., and payments were made in 1994 and 1995. The Membership is still alive for the Petitioner and hence it is treated as the asset of the accused officer at the end of the check period. (18) It is submitted that Smt.Annamma Joseph, wife of the petitioner purchased 200 shares from Federal bank value in Rs.10/- each on 1/12/1994 and thereafter the company issued 400 shares w/Rs.10/each during December 2004 as bonus to existing 200 shares thereafter 2008. (18) It is submitted that Smt.Annamma Joseph, wife of the petitioner purchased 200 shares from Federal bank value in Rs.10/- each on 1/12/1994 and thereafter the company issued 400 shares w/Rs.10/each during December 2004 as bonus to existing 200 shares thereafter 2008. She purchased 600 shares w/Rs.250/- each and thus total shares w/Rs.1,56,000/- is the asset of the accused officer at the end of the check period. 400 shares w/Rs.10/- each received as bonus (Rs.4,000/-) is shown as the income of the Petitioner at the beginning of the check period and hence the total value of shares are shown at the end of the check period. (19) An amount of Rs.59,545/- is not taken as the income of the Petitioner. It is the FD amount in the name of the wife of the Petitioner with Indian Bank, Pattom Branch and hence treated as the asset of the Petitioner at the end of the check period. 11. Insofar as the reduction canvassed by the petitioner is concerned, the statement filed by the learned Public Prosecutor would be relevant. 12. It is the settled law that when the court considers the plea of discharge, quashment or challenge against dismissal of discharge petition etc., the court cannot conduct a mini trial by addressing each and every evidence produced by the prosecution in its minute niceties, as could be done after the evidence is adduced during trial. In this case, even though in the initial investigation, the disproportionate assets of the petitioner was found to be 7.53% for a lesser check period, on further investigation with the permission of the court for the check period from 01.01.2001 to 22.12.2009, the same was enhanced to 42.32%. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the initial report and the basis of asset calculation to contend that the same is only 7.2%. 13. In the instant case, going through the prosecution records in comparison with the statement of assets and liabilities produced along with the final report, this Court finds that the correctness of the same cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage, as the same could be addressed based on the evidence to be adduced during trial. That apart, it was found by the Special Court while considering the discharge plea that there are specific materials before the court to justify framing of charge against the accused for the offence alleged. That apart, it was found by the Special Court while considering the discharge plea that there are specific materials before the court to justify framing of charge against the accused for the offence alleged. Further, the Special Court also found that the reductions in the basic statements ‘B’ and ‘D’ are to be considered only after adducing evidence during trial and accordingly, the discharge petition was dismissed, leaving open the right of the accused to raise such contentions during trial. 14. It is true that at the stage of framing charge, the court must be satisfied that with the prosecution materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial and strong suspicion for the same would suffice the same. But a strong suspicion must be founded on some material and the same could be one translated into evidence at the stage of trial. It is also settled law that a grave suspicion is necessary and a mere suspicion would not suffice the requirement to go for trial. 15. In the instant case, based on the prosecution records and as observed by the trial court, prima facie, the disproportionate asset to the extent of 38.72% is reflected in the statements submitted along with the final report. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the assets in excess would amount to only 7.2%. In fact, the same is a matter to be addressed by the trial court during trial after adducing evidence and the said liberty of the petitioner is kept intact. In view of the above, this petition is liable to fail. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.