IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.8584 OF 2008 SURENDRA KISHORE AMBASTHA, SON OF BASUKI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SHIVPURI, P.O. AND P.S. SHASTRINGAR, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE BUREAU, PATNA WITH CR.MISC. NO. 43138 OF 2008 SURENDRA KISHORE AMBASTHA, SON OF BASUKI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SHIVPURI, P.O. AND P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE BUREAU, PATNA ********* FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. VIJOY KUMAR PRASAD, ADVOCATE MR. HEMANT KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE O.P. :- MR. C. M. CHAURASIA, ADVOCATE ********** 4 17/02/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Vigilance Department. Criminal Misc. No. 8584 of 2008 has been filed against the order dated 03.12.2007 passed in Special Case No. 30 of 1999, arising out of Vigilance Case No. 33 of 1999 by which cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 5 (2) read with 5 (i) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Criminal Misc. No. 43138 of 2008 has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2008 in Special Case No. 30 of 1999 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 33 of 1999 by which the Special Judge has refused to discharge the petitioner. The cut off date for which the petitioner has 2 been assessed is 08.02.1967 to 1987-88. Learned Counsel for the petitioner besides arguing several other points has pointed out that the seizure list was prepared on 27.10.1999 and after the seizure was prepared, charge sheet was submitted on 21.11.2007 stating therein that apart from figure of disproportionate asset mentioned in the First Information Report, the petitioner is also found having disproportionate asset of Rs. 60,790/- on the basis of the seizure. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the seizure was made in the year 1999, the value ought to have been calculated according to the income of the petitioner in 1999 and not on the income of 1967-68 to 1987-88 which cannot be used as a measure to calculate his disproportionate asset. I find that the petitioner has made a valid point which he can raise, and the Court ought to answer this point during the hearing of this case, if it is argued. The charges have been framed and the petitioner should co- operate with the Court so that that matter can be disposed of as early as possible. These two applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)