- (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 Sec.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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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.;