ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. Order dated 07.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2022 in C.C.No.17 of 2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, is under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition moved by the sole accused therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/sole accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB in detail. Perused the records and the order impugned. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused, who worked as an Office Attendant in the Transport Commissionerate, in the Regional Transport Offices at Thiruvananthapuram and Palakkad between 01.04.2009 and 13.05.2015, being a public servant, amassed wealth by corrupt and illegal means disproportionate to his known sources of income, calculated at 39.30%. As per the prosecution allegation, the asset he had as of now would come to Rs.38,49,854.11 and his savings was 20,55,791/-. Therefore, he had assets to the tune of Rs.17,94,062.19 (i.e, 39.30%). On this premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused/revision petitioner. 4. On getting summons from the Special Court, the accused appeared and filed Crl.M.P.No.30/2022 seeking discharge as provided under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. While seeking discharge before the Special Court, the main contention raised by the accused is that the income of his wife and father-in-law, who had been residing with him, was also taken into consideration to assess his income so as to show that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. That apart, the methodology adopted by the vigilance in calculating the income and assets of a public servant also was challenged while canvassing discharge. Finally the Special Court found that, on verification of the statements of the witnesses, the table of statements, the exhibits annexed to the final report and statements A to F, prima facie, the allegation of the prosecution is established and, therefore, the discharge plea could not succeed. 5. Finally the Special Court found that, on verification of the statements of the witnesses, the table of statements, the exhibits annexed to the final report and statements A to F, prima facie, the allegation of the prosecution is established and, therefore, the discharge plea could not succeed. 5. When the learned Senior Counsel, who challenged the order of the Special Court, on the date of admission as on 30.10.2025, pointed out that the income to the tune of Rs.38,54,526.76 covered by item Nos.2,4,5,13 and 15 in the basic statement D are the assets specifically held by the wife and father in law of the accused and the prosecution had no case that those assets were generated by using the fund of the accused. When the matter was heard on 27.11.2025, the learned Senior Counsel conceded that when the wife and father in law resided along with the accused, their income also can be considered. But the Special Court not adverted to the said facts while dismissing the discharge petition moved by the accused. Therefore, the order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration by the Special Court. 6. Per contra it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case the wife of the accused is a house wife and she did not have any income independently other than that of the husband. It is also pointed out that since the father in law had some income, the same was taken into consideration along with the expenses of the father in law and the wife of the accused while finding that the accused had amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.17,94,062.19. It is also submitted that as per paragraph 130 of the Vigilance Manual, the term `public servant’ should be taken to include his family and any others who are dependent on him and in the same line, the financial details of the petitioner depend upon the income assessment of his family members. Further the petitioner’s father in law resided along with the petitioner and his family until 27.04.2014. Accordingly the assets, income and expenditure of his father in law were taken into account for the period from 01.04.2009 to 27.04.2014. Further the petitioner’s father in law resided along with the petitioner and his family until 27.04.2014. Accordingly the assets, income and expenditure of his father in law were taken into account for the period from 01.04.2009 to 27.04.2014. Therefore, prima facie, the allegation of amassment of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.17,94,062.19 is made out and in such a case discharge at the instance of the accused would not succeed. Therefore, the Special Court rightly dismissed the petition. 7. Apart from that, the report of the Investigating Officer shows the assets in detail as under: “ BASIC STATEMENT-A Assets possessed by the Accused and his family at the beginning of the Check Period (ie as on 01.04.2009) BASIC STATEMENT-B Assets possessed by the Accused and his family at the end of the Check Period (ie as on 13.05.2015) BASIC STATEMENT-C Income of AO and Family during the Check Period (01.04.2009 to 13.05.2015) BASIC STATEMENT - D Expenditure of AO and family during the check period (01.04.2009 to 13.05.2015) BASIC STATEMENT - E Assets Acquired by the AO and family during the check period. Basic Statement - F Disproportionate Assets of AO and family 8. In paragraphs 2, 8 and 9 of the statement A, it has been reported as under: “ According to the petitioner Item No. 2, 8 & 9 in the statement A belongs to the wife and the father-in-law of the petitioner: i) Item No.2 in Basic Statement A Smt. SreekhaK.M., wife of the petitioner R. Santhosh Kumar, had purchased 6.88 Ares of land comprised in Resurvey Nos. 76/9/B, 76/18, 76/19, and 76/14/B of Edakkodu Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, from Muhammed Sherief. S/o Abdul Khareem, on 04.07.2007 for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-, as per Sale Deed No. 1955/2007 of SRO, Attingal. The said transaction took place prior to the commencement of the check period, and the property remained under the absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's wife during the check period. Accordingly, this asset is to be treated as part of the assets held at the beginning of the check period. ii) Item No.8 in Basic Statement A Smt. SreekhaK.M., wife of the petitioner R. Santhosh Kumar, maintained a Savings Bank Account (No. 2790101000133) with the State Bank of India. Mamom Branch, Attingal. A balance of Rs.3,015/- was recorded in the said account as on 01.04.2009. ii) Item No.8 in Basic Statement A Smt. SreekhaK.M., wife of the petitioner R. Santhosh Kumar, maintained a Savings Bank Account (No. 2790101000133) with the State Bank of India. Mamom Branch, Attingal. A balance of Rs.3,015/- was recorded in the said account as on 01.04.2009. This clearly establishes that the account and the corresponding balance existed at the beginning of the check period. iii) Item No.9in Basic Statement A Sri. Madhavan Pillai N., father-in-law of the petitioner, maintained a Savings Bank Account (No. 57035044810) with the State Bank of India. Mamom Branch. Attingal, having a balance of Rs.2,37,346/- as on 01.04.2009. Since Sri. Madhavan Pillai N. was residing with the petitioner up to 27.04.2014 and shared household expenses, the said amount qualifies to be considered as part of the assets at the beginning of the check period. The above-mentioned Item Nos. 2, 8, and 9 in Basic Statement A represent assets held at the beginning of the check period. i.e., as on 01.04.2009. During this period, the petitioner and his wife were residing with the petitioner's father-in-law and shared the family expenses. Accordingly, the assets of the petitioner's wife and father-in-law were taken into account for the purpose of assessment during the check period.” 9. Regarding item Nos.3 to 6, 9 to 13 and 15 to 17 also the Investigating Officer reported as under: “According to the petitioner Item No. 3 to 6, 9 to 13, 15 to 19 in the statement D belongs to the wife and the father-in-law of the petitioner. i) Item No.2 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.17.410/- towards documentation charges in connection with Document No. 1816/2009 of SRO, Attingal. ii) Item No.3 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.23.405/- towards documentation charges in connection with Document No. 828/2009 of SRO, Attingal. iii) Item No.4 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of 29.20.267/- towards repayment, including interest. of Agricultural Jewel Loans (AJLs) during the period from 23.09.2010 to 14.10.2014 at Indian Overseas Bank, Anooppara Branch, Attingal. iv) Item No.5 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.22,708/- towards repayment of Chitty No. 19/06 at Edakkodu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No. 2523. Edakkodu P.O., during the check period. of Agricultural Jewel Loans (AJLs) during the period from 23.09.2010 to 14.10.2014 at Indian Overseas Bank, Anooppara Branch, Attingal. iv) Item No.5 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.22,708/- towards repayment of Chitty No. 19/06 at Edakkodu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No. 2523. Edakkodu P.O., during the check period. v) Item No.6 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.91.165.40/- towards repayment of Chitty No. 40/09 at Edakkodu Service Co- operative Bank Ltd No. 2523, Edakkodu P.O., during the check period. vi) Item No.9 in Basic Statement D The petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.6,302.15/- towards equipment and cylinder refill charges for Customer No. CX11611066 of Attingal Gas. Ayilam Road, Attingal, during the check period. vii) Item No. 10 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's father-in-law, Sri. Madhavan Pillai N., incurred an amount of Rs.9,944.39/- towards equipment and cylinder refill charges for Customer No. 12680 of Attingal Gas, Ayilam Road, Attingal, during the period of his stay with the petitioner. viii) Item No. 11 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.2.756/- towards building tax for Building No. VIII/1711 (New No. XX/311A) in Mudakkal Grama Panchayath during the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15. ix) Item No. 12 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.36,000/- as policy payment towards Policy No. 01309927044 of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Attingal Branch, during the check period. x) Item No.13 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as policy payment towards Policy No. 785023574 of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Attingal Branch, during the check period. xi) Item No. 15 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.15.670/- towards electricity charges for Consumer No. 1145322020410 of KSEB Electrical Section. Avanavanchery, Attingal. during the check period. xii) Item No. 16 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's father-in-law. Sri. Madhavan Pillai N., spent an amount of Rs.15,670/- towards electricity charges for Consumer no. 1145322020410 of KSEB Electrical Section. Avanavanchery. Attingal, during the check period. xiii) Item No. 17 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards payment under the Kanmani Deposit Scheme (A/c No.001001004275) at Chempoor Service Co-operative Bank T.202. Chempoor, Mudakkal.” 10. 1145322020410 of KSEB Electrical Section. Avanavanchery. Attingal, during the check period. xiii) Item No. 17 in Basic Statement D The petitioner's wife, Smt. SreekhaK.M., expended an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards payment under the Kanmani Deposit Scheme (A/c No.001001004275) at Chempoor Service Co-operative Bank T.202. Chempoor, Mudakkal.” 10. On scanning the prosecution records along with the report of the Investigating Officer, it is discernible that the petitioner’s wife Smt.Sreekha.K.M is unemployed though she held assets which, according to the prosecution, are the assets accountable by the accused. Further case of the prosecution is that when calculations were made, even though item Nos.2, 4, 5, 13 & 15 in the basic statement D are shown as the assets specifically held by his wife and father in law during the check period between 01.04.2009 to 13.05.2015, their expenses also were deducted as per norms. Paragraph 130 of the Vigilance Manual provides that the terms `public servant’ should be taken to include his family members and others who are dependent on him and in the same line, the financial details of the petitioner depend upon also the amount of income of his family members as a whole. Therefore, prima facie, the allegation as to amassment or disproportionate assets by the accused is made out warranting trial. 11. It is settled law that while considering a plea of discharge, the duty of the court is to examine whether the allegations in toto would make out a prima facie case to find commission of the offences to go for trial on the basis of strong suspicion in this regard, though a mere suspicion would not suffice for this purpose. 12. In this connection the decision of the Apex Court reported in [ (2009) 15 SCC 533 ], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi , placed by the learned Public Prosecutor also assumes relevance, wherein the Apex Court when considering the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, in paragraph 13 held that so far as 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 the Apex Court in [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 : JT (2004) 10 SC 303], State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi is relevant. Based on this decision, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that, therefore, the contentions now raised by the accused seeking discharge are matters of evidence to be considered after recording evidence and, therefore, dismissal of the discharge plea of the accused only to be confirmed. 13. Even though the learned counsel for the accused relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in [ 2012 (4) KHC 64 ], Natesan T.G v. Dy.Supdt of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to contend that the failure to incorporate the expression `on his behalf’ in the charge could not be treated as a mere omission and that, when the charge did not disclose that the property possessed by the wife of the accused was held on his behalf, in fact, the accused could be convicted for offence under Section 13 (1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988. But this ratio has no direct application to this case, where the prosecution has specifically shown that the assets of his wife and his father in law as well as their expenses are on his behalf and the ratio in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi ’s case (supra) and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi ’s case (supra) would govern this case. That is to say, when the assets and liabilities of a public servant being considered while adverting to the question as to whether a public servant amassed disproportionate assets, the income of the family members who are residing along with the public servant and their expenses could be taken into consideration. If any unnecessary inclusion or exclusion of items, either in the assets or in the liabilities which would require evidence, could not be considered at the pre-trial stage as those matters could be decided only on evaluation of evidence to be adduced during trial. 14. Even though the learned counsel for the accused pressed for remand of this matter after setting aside the impugned order, adverting to his contention, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order or to remand the matter for fresh consideration, as the prosecution records would show, prima facie, that the prosecution allegations are sufficient to go for trial. In view of the matter, the revision petition is liable to fail and is accordingly dismissed. 15. In view of the matter, the revision petition is liable to fail and is accordingly dismissed. 15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. The interim order of stay stands vacated. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court for continuing with the trial.