IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44009 of 2010 JAI NANDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM CHARITRA SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SAJANPURA, P.S. BAHERA, DISTT. DARBHANGA. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 8, BIKRAMSHILA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HANUMAN NAGAR, P.O. & P.S. PATRAKAR NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. ------ PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH C.B.I, ACB, PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra Kumar, Adv. For the C.B.I. Mr. Bipin Kr. Sinha (SC CBI) 4. 25.02.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Special Judge (C.B.I.), South Bihar, Patna, in Special Case No. 09 of 2008 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 13(2) read with (I)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The present case pertains to disproportionate assets acquired by the petitioner who was a Bank Official to the tune of about ` 54 lacs for which the petitioner did not have a valid explanation. The petitioner assails the order of cognizance on the ground that the C.B.I. had miscalculated the assets of the petitioner on the basis of the matured amount during the check period which had been reinvested. The C.B.I. had also not taken into consideration the landed property of the petitioner as well as the income of his mother, since the petitioner was the 2 only son. The further submission is that when the returns of the petitioner was scrutinized by the Income Tax Department, nothing was found amiss and, therefore, to hold the petitioner responsible for having assets beyond his income, is unwarranted. The learned counsel relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2000(3) Crimes, Page 105, SC (State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Mohanlal Soni) wherein it was held that if documents have been shown to the Investigating Agency, it should be taken into consideration. On the other hand, the C.B.I. has contended that at the stage of cognizance, these are not the matters which can be gone into by the Court. He also contends that the petitioner was refused anticipatory bail twice by this Court and once by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and despite notices to the petitioner, he could not explain his assets satisfactorily. In my view, this Court is not expected to scrutinize and calculate and do such deductions to arrive at a finding whether the petitioner indeed held assets beyond his income and these are the matters which can only be adjudicated at the stage of trial and it was only because he did not furnish proper explanation with regard to his assets that charge sheet was submitted against him. In view of such, the application is dismissed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)