ORDER

K. Venkataswami, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appeal was allowed with costs by our Order dated 27.3.1996 reserving the reasons to be given later. Now the reasons are given.

3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.

4. Short facts are as under:

The appellant started his career in a college in the year 1955 and switched over to TISCO in the year 1959 till he was selected and appointed as Inspector in the Income Tax Service in the year 1961. The appellant's wife was also a teacher in the Central School at Bokaro steel city. She was allotted on long lease a plot at Bokaro in the year 1980 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short "Sale"). As per terms and conditions imposed by SAIL, shops in the ground floor and residence at first floor were constructed by the appellant with his earnings as well as the earnings of his wife. The construction was strictly under the supervision and on the drawings supplied freely by Sail township authority. Subsequently the building was valued by Sail township engineer at Rs 4.75 lakhs

The appellant in the meanwhile got promotion and was functioning as Income tax Officer A-Ward, Dhanbad from 1981 to 1985. It appears that in the course of discharge of his duties, he impounded the books of accounts of certain business people who seemed to have complained to the local Congress Party M.P. who in turn complained about the appellant to the Minister of Finance with a request to transfer the appellant and to order for a CBI inquiry. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged on 9.4.1986 and the appellant's residence and office were raided on 11.4.86. However, nothing worth mentioning was found. Ultimately a charge-sheet was filed on 31.7.89 showing the assets of the appellant consisting of cash, immovable property (house) and jewellery as follows:

(i) Building at Bokaro

Rs. 7,69,300.00

(ii) NSCs

Rs. 82,500.00

(iii) Bank balance

Rs. 1,584.91

(iv)Household articles

Rs. 1,34,709.00

Total

Rs. 9,88,093.91

As against this the estimated savings for the check period (1973 of March 1986) was arrived at in the sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- and on that basis it was alleged that the assets were disproportionate to the extent of Rs. 3,57.439.00.

5. The appellant aggrieved by the above charge being taken cognizance of by the Special Judge challenged the same by moving the Patna High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C The High Court by order dated 3.8.90 allowed the petition and remitted the matter back to the Special Judge directing him to get a preliminary enquiry conducted by higher authority of the appellant or do it himself before taking cognizance of the matter.

6. It is the grievance of the appellant that without strictly complying with the remit order of the High Court, the Special Judge took cognizance of the matter and wanted to proceed further. Aggrieved by that the appellant again moved the Patna High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance of charge as mentioned above. This time the High Court dismissed the petition holding that the issues raised before it have to be gone into in the final proceedings and those cannot be raised at the preliminary stage.

7. The appellant aggrieved by the Order of the High Court has filed the above appeal by Special Leave.

8. It may not be quite out of place just to mention how the appellant was persecuted, if we may use that expression on the facts of this case.

On the basis of the FIR and consequential raid the appellant was placed under suspension on 24.11.86. No progress was shown n