The assessee is an  architect in NDMC. Based on certain information, it was noted that assessee owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Consequently, charges were filed against assessee and his son under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The main ground for charges were that assessee’s son received substantial amount through encashment of special bearer bonds and he had facilitated commission of offense inasmuch as assets were acquired by assessee in the name of trusts and other firms in which his son was the sole beneficiary. The Trial court passed order on charge and the framing of charges. Meanwhile, on the income tax front, the case of the assessee was reopened by the Assessing Officer based on the search conducted by CBI. Accordingly, additions were made in the hands of the assessee with respect to income of a trust on ground that source of investments in said trust were not explained and special bearer bonds which were encashed in the account of said trust were not of investments from the trust. On appeal, on the income tax front, the Tribunal deleted the additions on ground that trust was a separate entity and since assessee’s son was running its business, trust’s income could not be added in the hands of the assessee. Income tax Appellate Tribunal deleted additions made by Assessing Officer in hands of assessee on ground that trust was a separate entity and since assessee’s son was running its business, trust’s income could not be added in hands of assessee. Assessee  relied  upon findings recorded by authorities under Income Tax Act and contended that in view of order of Tribunal there was no ground to proceed with criminal trial.  However, High Court upheld order of charges. On appeal the Court held that  scope of adjudication in both proceedings (Prevention of Corruption Act and Income-tax Act) were markedly different and therefore, findings in latter could not be a ground for discharge of accused persons in former. Proceedings under Income Tax Act which were sought to be relied upon were related to assessment of income of assessee and not related to source of income and allegation of disproportionate assets under Prevention of Corruption Act, thus, said orders could not be basis to abort criminal proceeding. Court held that even a strong suspicion founded on material on record which is ground for presuming the existence of factual ingredients of an offence would justify the framing of charge against an accused person. The Court is only required to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of charge without blindly accepting the decision of the prosecution.  Appeal is dismissed. The Trial court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously. (AY.1989-1990 to 1995-1996, 1997-1998 to 2001-02)