ORDER :

M.K. Mukherjee, J.

1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. For possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, a case was registered against the respondent under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ("Act" for short). On completion of investigation, the prosecution filed charge-sheet against him after obtaining sanction from the State Government. The Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad took cognizance upon the charge-sheet and issued process against the respondent. After entering appearance, he filed an application seeking his discharge under Section 239 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge rejected that application and aggrieved thereby, the respondent moved the High Court in revision. By an order dated 18-7-1990, the High Court disposed of the revision petition by directing the State Government to reconsider the question of according sanction for prosecution of the respondent after giving him an opportunity to offer an explanation against the accusation made against him. Pursuant to the said direction, the State Government considered the explanation submitted by the respondent and rejected the same with the following order:

"The Government have examined the detailed explanation submitted by Shri P. Suryaprakasam for reconsideration of the earlier sanction of prosecution by the Government. After careful consideration of the explanation, the Government have decided that there is no ground to modify the earlier order of the Government sanctioning prosecution. His petition is accordingly rejected."

3. Thereafter, the respondent filed another application before the learned trial Judge seeking his discharge on the ground that the Government did not consider his explanation in terms of the direction of the High Court. The learned trial Judge rejected that application and aggrieved thereby, he filed another revision petition before the High Court which was allowed and thus the proceeding against the respondent was quashed. The above order is under challenge in this appeal.

4. In passing the impugned order, the High Court first made the following observation:

"In fact it is a settled law that while framing charges, the court should apply its mind and consider the entire materials not only produced by the prosecution but also the explanation and the materials produced by the accused and this should be objectively done and not subjectively. But in this case, the lower court has utterly failed to do so."

(emphasis supplied)

and then proceeded to consider the documents filed by the respondent to substantiate his claim that no offence as alleged was committed by him. After a detailed discussion thereon, the High Court upheld his claim and quashed the proceeding.

5. Without meaning any disrespect to the High Court, we are constrained to say that the settled law is just the reverse of what the High Court has observed in the above-quoted passage as would be evident from even a cursory reading of Sections 239 and 240 Criminal Procedure Code, which admittedly govern the case of the respondent. According to the above sections, at the time of framing of a charge what the trial court is required to, and can, consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. Of course, at that stage the accused may be examined but that is a prerogative of the court only. Though, in view of the clear language of the above sections, no authority need be cited for the above proposition still we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142 (to which one of us was a party) for therein, the scope and ambit of the above sections came up for consideration and it was held: (SCC p. 144, para 6)

"6. Having regard to the fact that the offences, for which charge-sheet was submitted