JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted. These appeals are inter linked and are therefore disposed of by this common judgment. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, questioning the order dated 3.10.2002 passed by a learned Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore framing charges in relation to accusations under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (in short the `Act').

2. A revision petition was filed by Virender Kumar Tripathi (hereinafter referred to as the `accused'). The State through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Indore filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that during the period of 1.1.1980 to 1.1.1990 while serving as Ranger in Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh he acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. At the time of framing charge the accused took the stand that he was liable to be discharged as the investigation was not conducted by the authorized police officer as required under Section 17 (second proviso) of the Act. Further sanction was not accorded in accordance with law by the Law Department who was required to consult the parent department of the applicant i.e. Forest Department in view of the order dated 9th February, 1988 of the State Government.

3. It was also submitted that the investigating agency had wrongly excluded the income of the wife of the accused though the same was properly disclosed as her income before the department as well as in the income tax returns. Similarly, certain receipts were not taken into account. The trial court held that the investigation was done by the authorized police officers i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police who had obtained search warrant from the CJM, Indore and, therefore, authorized officer investigated the matter.

4. It was also submitted that under Section 17 of the Act Deputy Superintendent of police can investigate into any offence under the Act being a designated officer. Further it was noted that as per the Business Allocation Rules framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution') the sanction was granted in the name of the Governor of the State by the Additional Secretary of the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs which was the legally authorized Department. However, the Court held that the plea that value of disproportionate asset was to be reduced so far as the exclusion of certain items is concerned, same was matter of evidence and is to be considered trial.

5. The stands taken before the trial court were reiterated before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the Law and Legislative Department was required to consult the parent department which was necessary as per the circular/order dated 9th February, 1988 and, therefore, there was no proper sanction. Accordingly, it was held that the accused cannot be prosecuted on the basis of the sanction of the Law and Legislative Department. It did not express any final opinion as far as the exclusion of income aspect is concerned. But it upheld the view regarding legality of investigation.

6. In the appeal filed by the State it has been contended that the sanction had been given by the concerned authority and, therefore, the High Court's view is not correct. Additionally, it is submitted that the exclusion of certain items as directed by the High Court cannot be maintained because at the stage of framing charges the Court is not required to take into account materials which have to be established during trial.

7. In the appeal filed by the accused the stand is that apart from the question of lack of sanction even on facts there is no scope for proceeding against the accused. In that view of the matter also the accused was entitled to be discharged. It is also submitted that the Dy. Superintendent of Police was not author