ORDER
N.K. Jain, J.
1. It is aptly said : “A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.”                                                              –Lord Denning.
2. We are also required to iron out some such creases which have surfaced on account of two Single Bench conflicting decisions of this Court in S.G. Pathak Vs. State of M.P. (1995 JLJ 225) and Harmahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr. Appeal No. 865/96) decided on 12-5-2000, as to the interpretation of Section 3 of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the M.P. Act of 1947’). On reference being made by one of us (Jain, J), these matters have been placed by the Order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, before us to answer the question extracted below :
“Whether the M.P. Special Police Establishment, constituted under the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, has power to investigate into the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also the Act of 1988, against the employees of the Central Government ?”
3. In S.G. Pathak (supra), Hon’ble Prasad, J., sitting at Indore, on consideration of the provisions to the M.P. Act of 1947 with particular reference to the M.P. Lok Ayukta Evam Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short, ‘The M.P. Act of 1981’), held :
“The result of the aforesaid discussion is that vesting of superintendence of the Special Police Establishment in the Lok-Ayukta, will not wipe out the very existence of the Establishment itself. It is not disputed that the Special Police Establishment has been declared as a ‘Police Station’ and the matter was investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police. As such I have no hesitation in holding that the Special Police Establishment has necessary powers to investigate the offence against the petitioner and his employment with the Central Government and vesting of former’s superintendence with Lok-Ayukta did not bar the authority of Special Police Establishment to investigate the offences.”
4. However, in Harmahendra Singh (supra) Hon’ble Khare, J., at Jabalpur took a contrary view and held :
“The object of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 as appears from its long title and the Preamble is to make provisions for the constitution of Special Police Force for the investigation of certain offences affecting public administration, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and jurisdiction of the members of the said force in regard to investigation of the said offences, therefore, the area of operation of M.P. Special Police Establishment has been specifically carved out. It is not disputed
that it has jurisdiction to investigate the offences committed by a public servant or officers appointed to public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh.”
The learned Single Judge concluded :
“It appears that the Officers of the M.P. Special Police Establishment at Raipur, exceeded their jurisdiclional limit and retrenched upon the field allotted to another specialised investigation agency. Inspector Naidu (P.W. 5) suffered from jurisdictional incompetence but lay the trap against the accused who was in the employment of the Central Government.”
5. It may be stated at the outset that the decision in S.G. Pathak was not brought to the notice of the Bench at Jabalpur when it decided the appeal in Harmahendra Singh’s case. The latter decision could, therefore, be termed as per incuriam, i.e., made in ignorance of the earlier decision of this Court in S.G. Pathak. Be that as it may, we proceed to consider and decide the question referred to us.
6. We have heard Mr. Mahendra Bhamagar, Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr. Chouhan, Mr. H.S. Uberoi, Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr. P. Prasad for the petitioner; and Mr. G. Desai, Dr. A.G. for respondent-State.
7. Mr. Bhatnagar and Mr. Uberoi have advanced more or less similar arguments and it was contended that M.P. Act of 1947 was enacted for the constitution of a Special Police Force for investigation of offences of bribery and corruption against officers connected with the affairs of the State. Learned counsel have read out the Preamble and Objects and Reasons of the Act to bring home their point. They also referred to the provisions of the M.P. Act of 1981 with particular reference to Section 4 of the M.P. Act of 1947 and submitted that the very fact that the power of superintendence over the Special Police Establishment is vested in the Lok-Ayukta, goes to show that Special Police Establishment like Lok-Ayukta cannot hold any enquiry or investigation into the charges of corruption against the Central Government Employees. Mr. Bhatnagar, further referred to the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (for short, ‘the Central Act of 1946’) and submitted that under that Act a Special Police Force has been created and vested with the exclusive power to investigate offences of bribery and corruption against officials connected with the affairs of the Central Government. It was thus submitted that decision in Harmahendra Singh’s case lays down the correct position of law.
As against it, Mr. G. Desai, Dy. AG contended that there is nothing either in the M.P. Act of 1947 or the Central Act of 1946 so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the M.P. Special Police Establishment to investigate into the offences of bribery and corruption committed by the employees of the Central Government posted in Madhya Pradesh. He submitted that under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘P.C. Act, 1988’), police officers of a particular rank belonging to the State Police are entitled to
investigate in offence punishable under the Act irrespective of the fact that the offender is connected with the affairs of the Union or of the Slate. Special Police Establishment is also a part of State Police Affairs and is so notified by the State Government under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pointed out the counsel. He further placed on record the Government Notification issued under the First proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act authorising the Inspector of Special Police Establishment to investigate the offences under the Act.
8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of various statutes referred to above. We may first take up the P.C. Act, 1988 itself which is the law relating to prevention of corruption and the matters connected therewith. It replaces the Old Act of 1947 (Act No. 2 of 1947). Section 17 of the Act provides for the persons aulhorised to investigate the offences under the Act and thus reads :
“17. Persons authorised to investigate.– Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,–
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police
officer of equivalent rank;
shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefore without a warrant: Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefore without a warrant:
Provided……”
9. Section 17 refers to the Police Officers of certain ranks who alone can investigate the offences under the Act without making any reference to the offender as to whether he is connected with the affairs of the Union or of the Slate. Except in clause (a) which refers to the Inspectors of Delhi Special Police Establishment, the entire investigation machinery referred to under Section 17 is the State Police and the only rider placed is that the investigating officer has to be of the rank of Dy. S.P./A.C.P. or at least Inspector authorised in this behalf by the State Government by general or special order. There is
absolutely no provision in the Act making nay discretion between the employees of the Union or the State in the matter of investigation.
10. Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the police to investigate the cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. The offences under the P.C. Act are also cognizable and can, therefore, be investigated by the police. The only rider is that investigation can be had only by a police officer of the rank specified in Section 17. The words “Police Station” has been defined in clause (s) of Section 2 of Cr.P.C. to mean “any post or place declared generally or specially by the Slate Government to be a Police Station”. M.P. Special Police Establishment is also a wing of State Police created under Section 2 of the M.P. Act of 1947. The State Government by Notification No. F/15-2(ii)-89-XLIX-10 dated 28th November, 1989 has declared the Office of the Director of Special Police Establishment, M.P. Bhopal, to be the Police Station for the purposes of certain offences including those under the P.C. Act. Further by a separate Notification No. F/15-2 (iii)-89-XLIX-10 dated 28th November, 1989 issued in exercise of power conferred by First Proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act, all Inspectors of Special Police Establishment have been authorised to investigate the offences under the Act.
11. We have gone through the entire M.P. Act of 1947 including its Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons. There is not even slightest indication in any of the provisions of the Act that it was meant to deal with the offences of bribery and corruption by the State Government employees only and to the exclusion of the offences committed by the Central Government Employees. No such exclusion is found in the Act either expressly or by implication. While Preamble of the Act clearly stated that a Special Police Force is being created under the Act for the investigation of certain offences affecting public administration, the Objects and Reasons tend to remove the doubt and make it clear that officers of this Department (S.P.E.) shall have the same powers of investigation as are at present exercised by Station House Officers of a Police Station, under the Code or Criminal Procedure. This is reinforced by the Notification dated 28-1-1989 already referred to above, whereby the Office of the Director of S.P.E. has been declared to be a Police Station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. The Act when read in the context of its Preamble and Objects and Reasons, leave no manner of doubt that the S.P.E. has the same powers as any other officer of a regular police force may have to investigate the offences under the P.C. Act of 1947 or of 1988.
12. It is true that Lok-Ayukta and Up-Lok Ayukta which are the creation of the M.P. Act of 1981, have been under Section 4 of the M.P. Act of 1947, conferred with the power of superintendence over the S.P.E. It is also true that Lok-Ayukta or Up-Lok Ayukta have no power under the Act of 1981 to enquire into the complaints against the Central Government Employees. But, as explained by this Court in Khemchand Vs. Superintendent of Police and another (M. Cr. No. 1497/93) decided on 20-7-1994, “the word ‘superinten-
dence’ would imply administrative control enabling the authority enjoying such power to give directions to the subordinate to discharge its administrative duties and functions in the manner indicated in the order. But while investigation the offence the police officer should exercise the power as vested in him under the statute and the Cr.P.C. and to that extent, he enjoys statutory power”. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In this context it is significant to note that the institution of Lok-Ayukta and Up-Lokayukta came in existence in 1981 i.e., much after the establishment of S.P.E. under the M.P. Act of 1947. Section 4 of this Act was amended by the Amendment Act of 1984 w.e.f. 10-5-1984. Obviously, this amendment did not have the effect of divesting the S.P.E. of the power of investigation into the offences affecting public administration committed by whomsoever be a State Government employee or a Central Government employee.
13. The contention that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Special Police Force created under that Act to investigate the offences of bribery and corruption committed by the Central Government Employees, is also wholly misplaced. While this Central Act of 1946 does provide for an agency for investigation of such offences committed by the Central Government employees, there is however, no provision in the Act to exclude jurisdiction of Police Officers of various States to investigate the said offences when committed by such employees in their States. The scope of the Central Act of 46 is rather limited inasmuch as it provides for the investigation of such offences when committed by the Central Government employees only. The Special Police Force under this Central Act cannot investigate the offences committed by the State Government employees. The legal position in the matter is made luculent by the Supreme Court in AC Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration (AIR 1973 SC 913) where in almost similar fact situation, the Apex Court held :
“The setting up of Delhi Special Police Establishment by the Central Government under the D.S.P.E. Act does not by itself deprive the anti-corruption branch (Delhi Administration) of its jurisdiction to investigate the offence of bribery and corruption against Central Government employee in Delhi.”
14. The P.C. Act of 1988 is a social legislation intended to curb illegal activities of public servants. As observed in Ramsingh, 2000(1) MPHT 558 (SC) = 2000 (5) SCC 88, “The Act is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. Procedure delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The overall public interest and the social object is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of the Act and deciding cases under it”. Our view of the matter is also consistent with the object of the P.C. Act.
15. It will be thus seen that the Central Act of 1946 does not deprive the State Police, be it a regular police force or the S.P.E., of its jurisdiction to
investigate the offences of bribery and corruption against the Central Government employees posted in the State of Madhya Pradesh. We thus answer the question extracted above in affirmative.
16. Both these matters shall now be placed before the respective Single Bench for further hearing.