ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A14 Final Report in FIR No.V.C. 11/17/SCE of VACB, Special Cell, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C. No.6 of 2022 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available and the decisions placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner, who retired as Superintending Engineer, LSGD, South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram, while working as a Government servant during the period from 01.01.2006 to 07.10.2017 had amazed assets worth Rs.5,76,00,687.24, which is 149.22% in excess of his known sources of income and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short]. 4. While canvasing interference of the Final Report by way of quashment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in this case, by registering Annexure-A8 FIR as on 05.10.2017, as a result of a quick verification done earlier, the petitioner/accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section Section 13 (1)(e) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and the allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner amazed disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.2,59,83,805/-, which is 82.80% of his total income. Aggrieved by Annexure-A8 FIR, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.C. No.7141/2017 before this Court and the same was disposed of as per Annexure-A11 order dated 09.01.2018. As per Annexure-A11 order, the grievance of the petitioner herein as regards to non consideration of Income Tax Returns submitted by the family members of the petitioner by the Investigating OfÏcer, before submitting the quick verification report had been addressed and finally a direction was given to the Investigating OfÏcer to consider the Income Tax Returns and the bank statements of the petitioner and his family members before proceeding further in the matter. Pursuant to the said direction, Annexure-A12 summons was issued by the Investigating OfÏcer directing the petitioner to appear before the OfÏce of the Dy.S.P.-1, Special Cell Ernakulam on 23.01.2018. Pursuant to the said direction, Annexure-A12 summons was issued by the Investigating OfÏcer directing the petitioner to appear before the OfÏce of the Dy.S.P.-1, Special Cell Ernakulam on 23.01.2018. The petitioner appeared before the Investigating OfÏcer and submitted Annexure-A13 representation along with 11 documents. However, without properly considering the documents produced by the petitioner, Annexure-A14 Final Report was filed alleging that the petitioner/accused amazed assets worth Rs.5,76,00,687.24, which is 149.22% in excess of his known sources of income. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter came up for consideration before this Court, as per the order dated 29.10.2024, this Court directed the petitioner to produce Income Tax Returns for the years pertaining to 2007-2008 upto 2018-2019, with direction to consider the same by the Investigating OfÏcer. Even though, additional statement has been filed by the Vigilance, the grievance of the petitioner was not addressed, particularly, in the matter of calculation of the rent obtained by the petitioner and the income of his family members. Pointing out the said anomaly, a reply statement also has been filed by the petitioner. 6. In gist, the point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the income of the petitioner from various sources, particularly, the income he derived from the rent was not properly considered by the Investigating OfÏcer and if so, the finding of the Investigating OfÏcer should be something different from what is alleged in the Final Report. 7. In response to this argument, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, since the grievance of the petitioner, as directed by this Court as per the order dated 29.10.2024 has been addressed as stated in the additional report, there is no reason to interfere with the Final Report, where materials are in abundance to go for trial. 8. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in this matter, the income assessed as that of the petitioner is for the period from 2005-2017. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests. 8. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in this matter, the income assessed as that of the petitioner is for the period from 2005-2017. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests. However, the period must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of a case, a ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling over from the anterior period, if their existence is probabilised would, of course, have to be given credit to on the income side and would go to reduce the extent and the quantum of the disproportion, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in [1987 KHC 771 : 1987 Supp SCC 379 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 91 ] State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla . 9. It is also pointed out that, when non exclusion of certain alleged income of relatives is the allegation, it could not be considered at the pre-trial stage and the same could be considered by the Special Court during the trial alone. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of the Apex Court reported in [2009 KHC 6147 : 2009 (15) SCC 533 : 2011 (99) AIC 97 ] State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi , wherein in paragraph No.10 it has been observed that, so far as the non - exclusion of certain alleged income of relatives is concerned, it needs to be noted that these are matters of evidence and in such matters, the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, JT 2004 (10) SC 303 is relevant. The High Court's judgment in this aspect does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. The High Court's judgment in this aspect does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. Another decision of the Apex Court reported in [ 2022 KHC OnLine 6920 : 2022 KHC 6920 : 2022 (2) KLD 700 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1150 ] State through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R.Soundirarasu has been placed by the learned Public Prosecutor with reference to paragraph Nos.78 to 80. In paragraph Nos.78 to 80, 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 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 ofÏcer 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. 79. By accepting the entire evidence put forward by the accused persons applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, the case put up by the prosecution cannot be termed as "groundless". As observed by this Court in C. D. S. Swami (supra) that the accused might have made statements before the investigating ofÏcer as to his alleged sources of income, but the same, strictly, would not be evidence in the case. 80. S.13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. 80. S.13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of S.13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income" would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money / assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of S.239 of the CrPC. At the stage of S.239 of the CrPC, the Court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless. 11. Having addressed the rival submissions, at present, the grievance of the petitioner is that, the Income Tax Returns showing the income of the family members of the petitioner, particularly that of the income received by way of rent by the petitioner were not properly considered. But, according to the learned Public Prosecutor the same has been specifically considered as detailed in the additional statement. 12. Going by the additional statement, the income declared before the Income Tax authorities by the petitioner is tabled in page No.9, as under: Assessment year Income from salary Income from house property Income from other source Agricultural income Tax paid 2005-2006 167637 19327 12000.00 13827 2007-2008 209250 17500 2008-2009 269672 109550 37740 12000.00 7294 2009-2010 347735 6837 12000.00 9360 2010-2011 405532 20000.00 14012 2011-2012 447373 78900 1220 15000.00 18056 2012-2013 602702 100950 1770 20000.00 54946 2013-2014 1064635 97779 10000.00 142916 2014-2015 1064635 97779 10000.00 142916 2015-2016 987461 127153 134481 2016-2017 1097797 168460 159227 Total 66,64,429 7,80,571 66,894 1,11,000 7,14,535 Grand total 83,37,429.00 13. Similarly, the income declared before the Income Tax authorities by Smt.Anitha Nahas, wife of the petitioner is extracted hereunder: Assessment year Income from house property Capital gain Income from salary Business income Income from other source Agricultural income Tax paid 2007- 2008 54394 178986 194309 6000 16198 2008- 2009 47250 35690 30867 40000 6000 Nil 2009- 2010 126960 16618 96781 122150 10000 9354 2010- 2011 49620 290705 115875 20000 26870 2011- 2012 16755 100516 547652 40000 51968 2012- 2013 356 189000 410000 40000 35918 2013- 2014 56111 462028 49000 30000 27515 2014- 2015 158460 283605 12573 2015- 2016 133478 332382 69522 15000 25900 2016- 2017 482912 33658 582039 5564 2017- 2018 626021 22800 20420 1752317 1350067 582129 415927 1274111 167000 232280 Grand Total 55,41,551 14. The income declared before the Income Tax authorities by Sri.Shalif M.Nahas, son of the petitioner is extracted hereunder: Assessment year Refund Income from house property Business income Income from other source Agricultural income Tax paid 2010-11 99061 69340 9907 2011-12 36840 314916 390 8096 2012-13 262430 37450 7646 2013-14 275990 39428 3080 7300 2014-15 Returns not filed for the assessment year 2015-16 255500 544964 186089 141333 2016-17 246400 28600 106876 10604 Total 36840 1355236 749503 365779 Grand Total 25,07,354.00 15. The income declared before the Income Tax authorities by Smt.Simna Nahas, daughter of the petitioner is extracted hereunder: Assessment year Refund Income from house property Business income Income from other source Agricultural income Tax paid 2013-14 126000 18000 2014-15 26000 168000 2015-16 175840 25120 Total 26000 4,69,840 Grand Total 46,98,400.00 16. In the additional statement, it has been specifically submitted that, even after considering the income of the family members of the petitioner and his other source of income as stated therein, no substantial change as regards the finding of amazement of disproportionate assets by the petitioner, as alleged by the prosecution in the Final Report. 17. Going by the additional statement filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell, Ernakulam, which is the summary of assessment of income of the petitioner and his family members, it could be gathered that the grievance raised by the petitioner has been addressed and according to the VACB, even after considering the income of the family members of the petitioner and his other source of income, the same would not make any substantial change in the income and expenditure of the petitioner during the check period. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, non-exclusion of the Income Tax Returns filed by the family members of the petitioner and the income he derived from rent, could not be considered by the Court at the pre-trial stage and the same can be considered only during trial. 18. Similarly, the power available to a court of law to discharge an accused can be exercised based on evaluation of the prosecution materials, with a view to find out whether the prosecution materials prima facie suggest necessity of trial or atleast a strong suspicion warranting trial. Anything more is not within the domain of the Court dealing with plea of discharge and such contentions are matters of evidence, after trial. Similarly, it is the settled law that, non-exclusion of certain alleged income of the relatives of the accused is not a matter to be considered at the pre-trial stage. 19. In this case, the contention raised by the petitioner was considered by the VACB and for the reasons explained and discussed, the VACB sticks on the allegation that the accused amazed assets worth Rs.5,76,00,687.24, which is 149.22% in excess of his known sources of income. But, the accused/petitioner is disputing the said finding. In fact, non-exclusion of certain alleged income of the relatives of the accused is to be considered by the trial court during trial and pre-trial interference is absolutely unwarranted in this case, since the prosecution materials would prima facie show the allegation, warranting trial. In view of the said finding the quashment sought for herein is liable to fail and accordingly this petition also is liable to fail. 20. In the result, this petition stands dismissed. Interim order in this matter stands vacated. It is specifically ordered that, the observations made in this order are for the purpose of considering quashment and the same have no binding effect during the trial and the Special Court shall decide the case on merits, after adducing evidence. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and compliance.