THOMAS - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) A case has been charge-sheeted by the Cenral 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 offence 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 said 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. 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. 1,16,00,000.00 (one crore sixteen lakhs) for which he had no explanation whatsoever. 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 persons to frame charge under Section 13 read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and to proceed with the trial."
(3.) 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. 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.;