( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the order dated 28-6-2001 passed by the learned Special Judge for C. B. I. cases, Hyderabad, in Cri. M. P. No. 148 of 2000 in C. C. No. 17 of 1999.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 17 of 1999 filed by the C. B. I. for the alleged offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( the Act, 1988 for brevity ).

( 3 ) THE factual matrix germane in the context for better understanding of the matter and for eventual adjudication may be stated thus : The petitioner accused has been working as Regional Chief, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, a concern totally owned by the Government of India. Basing on a complaint dated 27-6-1998 received from one Dr. C. Suresh against the petitioner, a case in Crime No. 10/acb-CR/98 had been registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the agency laid a trap against him. The trap was successful and the bribe amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- said to have been received by the petitioner when offered by the complainant on demand by the petitioner was recovered. Thereupon under a letter No. 83/rct Crime/98 dated 29-6-1998 addressed by the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, the case had been transferred to the CBI on the point of jurisdiction since the petitioner is a Central Government employee, and the latter upon receiving the same registered the case in RC. 21 (A)/98/cbi/hyderabad under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, 1988; continued the investigation, examined the witnesses; and after having obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority eventually laid charge sheet before the Special Court for CBI cases at Hyderabad, against the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner appeared before the Court pursuant to summons issued to him. After having been supplied with the copies of documents he filed application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code for brevity) seeking to discharge from the case on the premise that ACB being a State organisation had no jurisdiction to lay trap, and the investigation conducted by the said agency resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and grave prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, he shall be discharged. That petition was resisted by the CBI by filing a counter. After having heard on either side, the learned Special Judge dismissed the petition under the impugned order.

( 5 ) THE seminal point for consideration in this petition is, whether the registration of the crime and laying of trap against the petitioner by a State agency, namely, ACB is illegal for want of jurisdiction and what is the consequence of such illegality?

( 6 ) OBVIOUSLY in this case the registration of the crime, laying of trap and the initial investigation have been done by the ACB, which is a State agency against the petitioner, who is admittedly an employee of the Central Government Undertaking. Central Bureau of Investigation is the agency established to conduct investigation into the cases of bribery and misconduct against the employees of Central Government and its undertakings. Needless to advert to the specifics of the case inasmuch as the adjudication of the point being one of pure question of law can be determined sans the same. The legal position is no more res integra and has been squarely covered by judgments of the Apex Court. In view of the significance attached to the point involved for determination since it might arise time and again in several cases where one agency which lacks jurisdiction initiating the criminal proceedings and the competent agency coming into the picture at a later point of time, it is expedient to have a critical examination of the same.

( 7 ) IT is one of the essential functions of the State to maintain law and order. To maintain an orderly society, the State has undertaken the task of bringing the culprits to book and prosecute t