R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court against order dated 19-8-98 of Special Judge, Bilaspur whereby the learned Judge declined the prayer of the petitioner to summon, at pre charge stage an alleged earlier report of Up-Lokayukt, concerning assets acquired by him in proceedings of an earlier inquiry. The report was allegedly given in 1986 and was kept in the office of Up-Lokayukt. This inquiry pertained to the period 1-1-80 to 1986 about the assets of the accused. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has been sent up for trial for offences under Sections 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having acquired assets more than his income during the period 1-1-80 to 30-4-92. The offence has been investigated by the Special police establishment constituted under M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 as extended to the State of M. P. by Section 3 (1) of M. P. Extension of Laws Act, 1958 (Act No. 23/58) vide item No. 15 of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act w. e. f. 15-1-59 under a notification of Govt. of M. P. dated 31-12-58. The police has reported acquisition of disproportionate assets during the relevant period. The matter was at pre charge stage and the question of framing of charge is to be considered by the Special Judge. ( 3 ) THE petitioner applied to the Court that the report of Up-Lokayukt in the matter of inquiry No. 5524/80 given in 1986 and kept in that office be requisitioned and be also considered as in that report for the period 1-1-80 to 1986 to disproportionate assets were found to be acquired by this accused. ( 4 ) THIS prayer of the accused made under Section 91 (1) Cr. P. C. , was declined by the trial Court saying that no report of any authority could bind the Court in reaching a finding regarding prima facie case of a particular charge on the allegations made in the report under Section 173 (3), Cr. P. C. along with the documents filed and evidence collected under Section 161, Cr. P. C. The Court has to reach its own conclusions and for that reason such a report would not be relevant. P. C. along with the documents filed and evidence collected under Section 161, Cr. P. C. The Court has to reach its own conclusions and for that reason such a report would not be relevant. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that his client asserts that Up-Lokayukt made an inquiry for the period 1-1-80 to 1986 about his disproportionate assets and gave a clean chit. It is urged that figure 80 denotes the year of start of inquiry. It is strange that an inquiry started by the Up-Lokayukt Shri Bhave started in 1980 was completed in 1986 and pertains to the year 1-1-80 to end of 1986. That means it was a prospective inquiry. Without going further deep into this aspect there can be no doubt that a Court of law is not bound by reportsof officers of the State Govt. although they were made in exercise of their jurisdiction regarding facts including the commission of offences. For that proposition relied upon by the trial Court, this Court does not find any exception. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner's assertion is that it would be a relevant factor which the Court may look into. It is urged that the report will show under what circumstances it pertains to the particular period from 1-1-80 to the end of 1986. The counsel for the petitioner does not know the date of this report but it was of the year 1986. ( 7 ) SHRI Ahluwalia counsel for the State has countered the assertions of the counsel for the petitioner on grounds other than those taken by the trial Court also. He urges that any information obtained by Lokayukt or Uplokayukt in evidence collected by them during proceedings before them under the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act cannot be called as evidence before the Court of law as Section 14 of that Act bars it. The argument is that all information or evidence recorded or collected in connection with information on investigation by Lokayukta is barred from being produced in Court. Then the report ensuing such collection of evidence should also be deemed as barred. If such a report is allowed to be summoned then it amounts to summoning or taking into account evidence also as the report cannot be dehors of the evidence. Then the report ensuing such collection of evidence should also be deemed as barred. If such a report is allowed to be summoned then it amounts to summoning or taking into account evidence also as the report cannot be dehors of the evidence. ( 8 ) THE third argument of the counsel for the State is that the relevant period of acquisition of disproportionate assets which was taken into consideration was from 1-1-80 to 30-4-92 and it cannot be bifurcated into separate portions to find out when the commission of offence started. The acquisition of disproportionate assets during the particular period is an integrated aspect and need not be divided as to on what day a particular asset was acquired or acquired illegally. The whole period is to be taken and the whole acquisition during that period is to be taken. The acquisition may be revealed after lapse of time and may not be revealed earlier although there may be no justified source for its acquisition. ( 9 ) IN order to meet these arguments the counsel for the petitioner urges that in fact the report of the Up-Lokayukt Shri Bhave was his finding on the basis of evidence collected by police authorities which is the agency through which Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt collects evidence. He urges that he does not want the evidence collected at that time but only the report ensuing that evidence and on that basis he urges that under Section 14 of the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 there is no mention of report of Up-Lokayukt. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner also brings to notice of this Court the provisions of Sections 7 to 12 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam urging that the matter to be looked into by Lokayukt, the procedure for inquiry, the matters which are not subject to inquiry by Lokayukt and procedure in respect of inquiries and resulting reports of Lokayukt which are to be dealt with by him, have been provided in these sections. It is urged that if any investigation is made by police agency and reported to Lokayukt and Lokayukt makes his report about it, that would not be strictly an inquiry by the Lokayukt to be covered under Section 14 of that Act. I have given my thoughts to all these assertions of the counsel for the petitioner as also to the counsel for the State. I have given my thoughts to all these assertions of the counsel for the petitioner as also to the counsel for the State. There is no dispute about the proposition that the trial Court is not "bound" by report of any authority in reaching its conclusion on the material on record. The petitioner wants the report to be looked into on the ground that it is relevant for part of the period as the authority had gone into the material then available. He only wants the Court to look into it and not that the Court should be bound by it. ( 11 ) EXPLANATION to Section 7 of the Lokayukt Adhiniyam provides regarding inquiries by Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt that the expressions "may proceed to enquire" and "may enquire" include investigation by police agency put at the disposal of Lokayukt and Uplokayukt in pursuance of sub-section (3) of Section 13. SECTION 13 (3) of this Adhiniyam provides as under :-"without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt may for the purpose of conducting enquiries under this Act, utilize the services of - (I) any officer or investigation agency of the State or Central Government with the concurrence of that Government; or (II) any other person or agency. 12-13. These provisions clarify that the enquiries made by Lokayukt can be made through various agencies including the police and based on that enquiry, Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt, as the case may be, makes his report which is further dealt with in accordance with those provisions. 14. Section 14 of this Act debars from being called in evidence before a Court, information obtained by Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt or the staff, in the Court, or for the purpose of investigation or evidence, recorded or collected in connection with such information. The report of Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt is essentially to be based on such evidence recorded or evidence collected and there have to be comments based on it. In these circumstances the report has to be debarred from being called as evidence by Court of law. If the report is allowed to be called, as an exception, the spirit of the bar under Section 14 is taken away. Such a report is to be dealt with in the manner provided under Section 12 of the Adhiniyam. In these circumstances the report has to be debarred from being called as evidence by Court of law. If the report is allowed to be called, as an exception, the spirit of the bar under Section 14 is taken away. Such a report is to be dealt with in the manner provided under Section 12 of the Adhiniyam. Those are the powers of the Lokayukt as to how he deals with the report and it does not bring this report out of the purview of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam. The Lokayukt under Section 12, if he so feels proper, can send his report to the competent authority to be dealt with in the manner prescribed. So unless the Lokayukt himself makes the report published, the Courts of law will not call for that report in view of the bar under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam. There is another aspect, on the facts of this case, as to when the Up-Lokayukt made a report and whether he kept it and whether it is still in his records since 1986 apart from the fact as to what was the result. 15. Considering these additional legal aspects, as also the grounds which the trial Court has taken, and which appear to be just and proper in accordance with law, this Court is of the view that the so called report of Lokayukt bearing No. S. J. 24/80 cannot be ordered to be called in the trial Court to look into, by exercising powers under Section 91 (1), Cr. P. C. 16. The petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed. .