G. Jayachandran, J. - (1.) The petitioner Tmt. Mangaiyarkarasi is wife of Mr. S.Babu, Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I, Kumbakonam. The respondent police has registered first information report on 06.08.2006 against S.Babu, his wife Mangaiyarkarasi and his brother Senthil for alleged possession of assets in the form of farm houses, house sites, agricultural lands and investments in transport vehicles and tanker lorries worth more than the known sources of their income. On investigation it was found that, S.Babu (A-1) being a public servant have assets in his name and his wife (A-2) and daughters (A-3 and A-4) name to a tune of Rs 62,50,530.06 which he has amassed during the check period 1/07/1998 to 30/06/2004. During the said period the tentative total income of S.Babu and his family members was estimated at Rs. 8,90,000/- and the expenditure was estimated at Rs.3,57,484/-. The balance of Rs.5,32,516 alone is likely to be the savings, whereas the assets at the hands of S.Babu and his family members were far in excess of that. Tmt. Mangaiyarkarasi w/o Babu , Selvi Shobika d/o Babu, Selvi Rasika d/o Babu have assisted and aided S.Babu for acquisition of wealth in their name on behalf of S.Babu. Hence, final report against S.Babu and others was laid on 09.11.2009 by the prosecution agency before the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Salem to try the public servant for offence under sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act 1988 and the private individuals for aiding and assisting the public servant to acquire wealth using their names, hence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w section 109 IPC.
(2.) The petitioner herein who is arrayed as A-2 has filed petition under section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge, which was dismissed by the trial court on 04.12.2004 assigning reasons. Thereafter the trial court has framed charges and the matter is taken up for trial. It is submitted by the counsels representing the parties before this court that as on date of hearing this petition, 51 witnesses out of 80 witnesses already examined by the prosecution.
(3.) This petition to quash is filed on the ground that the petitioner though wife of the public servant A-1, have income of her own through assets stood in her name and her ancestral name. Her income is assessed to tax and she has paid the income tax. She was not given opportunity to explain her sources of income to purchase the assets. Only A-1 was asked to give his explanation for the assets and his explanation was not considered by the investigation agency. 90% of the assests which are shown as assets of A-1 stands in the name of A-2, who as a separate entity having independent income through properties acquired from agricultural income, rental income and money lending business. Inspite of explaining the sources of income through the explanation of A-1, the income tax returns filed in the name of the petitioner-Mangaiyarkarasi have not been considered by the prosecution and it is not part of the documents relied on by the prosecution. Hence, the trial court while dismissing the discharge petition has not considered the income tax returns which will prove the sources of income. Therefore, The petitioner / 2nd accused, on the same grounds raised in the discharge petition, but paraphrasing differently has preferred petition under 482 Cr.P.C to quash the final report.;