R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been charge-sheeted by Court of Special Judge, Jabalpur, for offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act ). He is a public servant as Asstt. Engineer in Irrigation Deptt. According to the prosecution, investigations were made under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act that he had assets more than his known sources of income. He acquired wealth in his own name and Benami in the name of his wife and other family members. According to the prosecution his known source of income was limited to Rs. 23,07,545/- during the period 1978 to 1989. His wealth was worth Rs. 47,54,741/ -. Hence charges were directed to be framed by the impugned order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the Court could not take cognizance as there was no sanction by the prescribed authority or by the authority who was competent to remove him from service. The sanction is by Secretary of Law State of M. P. on behalf of State of M. P. It is argued that the Secretary is not competent to remove him although State Govt. was competent to remove him, but the sanction should have been by the Chief Engineer who was competent to remove him or some authority higher to him and the authority of the State Govt. could not be exercised by Secretary of Law Deptt. and could be exercised by Secretary of Irrigation Deptt. It is further urged that the sanction is otherwise also bad as the sanctioning authority did not consider it that the property known as Meera Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. and Maruti Hotel, Jabalpur was owned by an independent body and a juristic person separately assessed to the income tax and its property could not be considered as property of the accused although Meera was the wife of the accused. The third argument is on merits that there is no sufficient material to show on record what were the known sources of income of the petitioner and property belonging to the others is not belonging to the accused and this matter should also be looked into at the charge stage by the trial Court or now by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. ( 3 ) IT is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the investigating agency did not ask the petitioner to explain his known sources of income and this is pre-requirement for constituting an offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act. Taking up the last point first, the matter is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Veera Swami cited at 1991 (3) SCC 655. The Supreme Court said that the satisfactory account about acquisition of the disproportionate assets is to be given by the accused during the trial and there is no requirement of law that he should be required to account for the same during investigation or there should be a pre-charge trial by the investigator. The point need not be discussed further and is, therefore, held without substance. ( 4 ) AS regards the validity of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act, the argument is that the accused was Asstt. Engineer when the charge-sheet was filed and was not a gazetted officer and therefore for removing from his post, sanction of State Govt. was not necessary. He could be removed by the Chief Engineer or by the authorities higher to him. So his case should fall under Section 19 (1) (c ). It is further conceded that removal could be by higher officers or even by the State Govt. ( 5 ) THE sanction which has been placed on record has been accorded in the name of the Governor and under his orders by the State Govt. acting through the Addl. Secretary of Law. The words read, "madhya Pradesh Ke Rajyapal Naam Se Tatha Adeshanusar, M. P. Govt. Vidhi and Vidhayai Karya Vibhag. " The relevant portion of the order indicates that the sanction was given by the State Govt. So the Addl. Secretary was not acting in his own capacity but was acting on behalf of the State Govt. in the name of the Governor under his orders. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that according to the Rules of Business framed by the Governor of M. P. under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the business of and the jurisdiction of sanctioning prosecution under the Act has been allocated to Law Deptt. If we go by that Rule, the sanction would be proper on behalf of the State Govt. If we go by that Rule, the sanction would be proper on behalf of the State Govt. ( 7 ) HOWEVER the contention of the petitioner is that the Addl. Secretary was not entitled to remove the petitioner. Therefore his case does not fall under Section 19 (1) (b) because the person authorised by the State Govt. is not a person who has authority to remove him from service. His case falls under Section 19 (1) (c) of the P. C. Act. ( 8 ) THIS Court is not impressed by the arguments. Even under Section 19 (1) (c) the State Govt. can direct his removal and can dismiss him. All penalties including dismissal could be levied by the State Govt. So the State Govt. can grant sanction. To this extent there can be no dispute. The State Govt. can authorise any of its officers for that purpose and Secretary of the Law Deptt. has been authorised under these Rules. When the State Govt. acts, in granting sanction for prosecution, it is immaterial whether it acts under Section 19 (1) (b) or 19 (1) (c ). So that distinction is unacceptable. So this point has also no substance. ( 9 ) COMING to the last point regarding whether there is sufficient material on record to show the exact amount of income and the assets of the accused in his name or in the names of the close relatives benami, that matter can be adjudicated only after evidence is led by the prosecution. The prosecution cannot be debarred from showing by evidence that certain acquisition in the name of the wife and son were in fact benami and the real source was of the petitioner himself, by illegal sources. Learned counsel urges that in fact the total of the alleged property of the accused did not add up to Rs. 47 lakhs but only up to 44 lakhs. That matter can also be decided at the trial. ( 10 ) THE revision has no substance. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .