JUDGMENT The revision is directed against the order dated 12.5.97of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Indore, passed in Special Case No. 4/94, whereby a direction for framing charge under S. 5(1)(e) read with 5(2), 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been made. This case has got a chequered history. Investigation against the accused-applicant was started in February' 84. His income and the property earned between the period 1.4.76 to 31.3.84 was taken into consideration. The Investigating Officer found property to be disproportionate to his income of the relevant period. As there was delay in the matter a petition was filed by the accused-applicant. The same was disposed of with the direction that the matter shall be raised before the Special Judge, who shall consider over the matter. The Special Judge, after considering the documents filed by the prosecution, came to a prima facie conclusion that the property held by the accused is disproportionate to his income and has directed framing of charge after overruling the objections raised by the accused. Hence, this revision. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there has been double enquiry (preliminary and final) and, therefore, the statements recorded and the evidence collected on a subsequent enquiry cannot be read as it is hit under section 162 Cr Pc. The second contention of the learned counsel is that while framing charges specially in cases like this where a person is accused of holding disproportionate property the document adduced and submissions made by the accused shall have to be considered and as the Judge has failed to do so the charge is invalid. As against it, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Court is required to see the evidence collected by the prosecution and come to a conclusion as to whether there is a prima facie case which has been held in this case and, therefore, charges have rightly been framed. In reply to the 1st contention it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that whether evidence is created at the stage of investigation, be it preliminary or final, that will have to be considered and the objection can be raised at the time of trial. In reply to the 1st contention it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that whether evidence is created at the stage of investigation, be it preliminary or final, that will have to be considered and the objection can be raised at the time of trial. Regarding the 1st contention of the learned counsel for the applicant it can be observed that evidence collected during so called both enquiries can be directed to be produced before the Court and if there is any discrepancy the accused would be entitled to show it before the Court during trial. The Court after recording of evidence and during appreciation of evidence can come to a conclusion with respect to reliability of the evidence so collected. Thus accused is not entitled to get the record and evidence of preliminary enquiry produced during consideration of charge. However, he shall be entitled to get the same produced for cross-examination of witnesses. Now, so far as the 2nd objection of learned counsel is concerned it contains grain of substance. In such cases where a person facing charges for holding disproportionate property, the explanation given and the document produced by the accused even at the initial stage will have to be considered for coming to conclusion as to whether a prima facie case for holding disproportionate property is made out. There may be cases where the defence may not be considered at the initial stage which is normally done in ordinary criminal cases. For example it can be stated that where a person is accused of taking bribe the explanation given by him shall be considered after recording the evidence if there is prima facie evidence regarding giving and taking of the bribe. This is not the case here. Here the allegation is that the person has got an income, but the property held by him is disproportionate and, therefore, if at the initial stage itself the accused tan demonstrate by producing relevant documents that the property held by him is not disproportionate the Court can come to its own conclusion as to the framing of charges on examination of such documents. It may further be observed here that the Courts are not required to appreciate and evaluate the evidence at the initial stage, but the document produced by the accused and explanation given by the accused will have to be considered and if on such consideration Court comes to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case for framing charge learned trial Judge would be free to frame charges. In view of above, this Court sets aside the order of framing of charges and directs the trial Court to consider the documents and explanation given by the accused including statement and documents produced by the prosecution and then come to a prima facie conclusion as to whether a case for trial is made cut and if answer is in positive he can frame charges. This Court is informed that the case is fixed for evidence on 19th, but no witness has been summoned as the record was called by this Court. It is, therefore, directed that the accused shall appear before the Spl. Judge on 19th of this month. Learned Spl. Judge shall consider the submissions made by the prosecution and defence, as directed above and shall decide whether there is a prima facie case for framing of charges and further proceed according to law. Record of the lower Court be sent immediately. Accused shall appear in the trial Court on 19.8.97. No further notice will be necessary.