Rathnakala, J.

1. The petitioners herein are charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(11), (111) & 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) read with Section 34of IPC. They are the Motor Vehicle Inspectors.

2. The allegation is, on 11.3.2013 they were on duty from 8.00 a.m. till 8.00 a.m. of 12.3.2013 near the Checkpost, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura District. During the course, they have collected less licence fee of Rs. 63,600/- and penalty amount from the drivers of the vehicles passing through the Checkpost and misappropriated Rs. 2,30,600/-, which they had collected extra; on 12.3.2013 after their duty hours, they shared gratification money among themselves and also third accused/driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-04/C-5265 and while they were proceeding in the said car, the vehicle was intercepted by the Police Inspector of Lokayuktha; Rs. 52,590/- from first accused; Rs. 60,970/- from second accused and Rs. 17,040/- from the driver and Rs. 1,00,000/- underneath the seat of the driver, totally Rs. 2,30,600/- was seized under mahazar, which was the amount collected by them illegally from the vehicle drivers. It is not in dispute that, after filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners sought for discharge before the Special Court, which came to be rejected. They took the matter in revision before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 919/2014. The said Revision Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.2.2015. Para-2 of the said order reads thus:

"2. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the primary contention is violation of 2nd proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is pointed out that the said point has not been agitated before the Court below. In this background, the petitioners' counsel sought to withdraw the above petition and submits that he would opt to invoke the provision of Section 482 challenging the entire charge sheet. The petitioner has filed a memo to that effect."

3. Sri. P.N. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, with regard to maintainability of petition against an order, which is amenable for revisional jurisdiction, submits that the petitioners are granted permission in Criminal Revision Petition No. 919/2014 to file the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in identical situation, petitioners of Criminal Revision Petition No. 2025/2009 got the revision petition withdrawn and when filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Criminal Petition No. 2066/2010), this Court in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni reported in AIR 1997 SC 987 held that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was maintainable and the petition was allowed on merits.

Learned Counsel further submits that, the petitioners are charge sheeted on two counts. One is for possession of disproportionate wealth under Section 13(1)(e) and the other is under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Section 17 of the Act envisages the rank of the Police Officer, who can investigate the offence under Section 13(e) of the Act. The proviso to Section 17 contemplates that such offence cannot be investigated without the order of the Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. In this case, the Investigating Officer is of the rank of Police Inspector. Hence, the entire investigation insofar as Section 13(e) is concerned, shall go. Learned Counsel in this regard relies on the judgments of the Apex Court - (1) State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604(1); (2) State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri reported in (2006) 7 SCC 172. Further his submission in respect of allegation under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is, the Investigating Officer intercepted the petitioners while they were on their way from duty to their re