VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In case investigation into offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be conducted by the CBI the investigation officer can be of below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
2. Merely on ground the Court which took cognizance of the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is not empowered by notification, proceedings cannot be quashed, for, in such a case, the case can be transferred to Court having jurisdiction or proceedings can be kept in abeyance till Government issues notification empowering a Court.

JUDGEMENT

Thomas. J.-Leave granted.

2. A case has been charge-sheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against S. Bangarappa, one time Chief Minister of Karnataka State, alleging that he had amassed wealth grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income during a check period when he held public offices either as Minister or Chief Minister. The offences under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short the Act ) was pitted against him, read with Section 13(1)(e) thereof on the ground that he was in possession of pecuniary resources and assets so disproportionate that he could not satisfactorily account for them. When respondent (S. Bangarappa) moved the High Court of Karnataka for quashing the 997 criminal proceedings, a single judge of the High Court, as per the order impugned in this case, quashed the same. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the CBI in challenge of the said order.

3. The check period is nearly a decade (between 9.8.1988 and 31.10.1997) during which the respondent held public offices either as MLA or as a Minister in the State cabinet or as Chief Minister of the State or as a Member of Parliament. According to the CBI the total income which respondent had from all his known sources of income, during the aforesaid period, was around 30 lakhs and after deducting his expenses (which were worked out approximately to be 22 lakhs) he could not have made a saving of more than 7 lakhs of rupees. But the CBI found that during the said period the respondent had acquired assets worth more than Rs. 1,16,00,000/- (one crore sixteen lakhs) for which he had no explanation whatsoever.

4. When respondent was brought before the trial Court he pleaded for a discharge from the prosecution for which he raised various contentions. The special judge heard arguments at that stage for a long time spreading over to a number of days. He then passed a very detailed order (running into 57 closely typed pages) just for holding that "there is a prima facie case against the accused person to frame charge under Section 13 read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act and to proceed with the trial".

5. Respondent then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) challenging the aforesaid order. Three contentions were mainly raised by him before the High Court. First was that the investigation was not conducted in the manner specified under Section 17 of the Act.  Second was that the court which ordered to frame the charge had no jurisdiction to try the case because no notification had been issued under Section 4 of the Act. Third was that on the merits it is not safe to rely on the statements alleged to have been made by some of the witnesses.

6. Learned single judge of the High Court upheld all the above three contentions raised by the respondent and consequently the proceedings taken against him were quashed in full measure.

7. Shri Harish Salve, learned Solicitor General of India, contended that the High Court has grossly erred on all the three points and there was absolutely no necessity for the High Court to have interfered with the case at that preliminary stage. When the trial Court has chosen to decide that the accused had to be tried for the offence, he could not understand the wisdom of the High Court in making a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution and to scuttle further proceedings of the trial without waiting for the trial to reach its normal culmination. Shri. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, who argued for the respondent, has fairly conceded that he could not validly countermand the contentions of the learned Solicitor General of India in respect of the first and second points referred to above, but he made a bid to sustain the order on the ground that there was no sufficient materials to frame the charge.

8. Learned single judge reminded himself that public men should have crystal clear