Jagannathan, J

Whether the coming into force of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 (for short 'the State Act') has the effect of regulating the manner of investigation only in accordance with the provisions of the State Act, even in respect of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Central Act')? Whether the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 'Cr.PC.' for short) are inapplicable to the investigation of the offences under the Central Act, by the Police Inspector of the Lokayuktha, and thirdly, are the Police Officers of the Lokayuktha prevented from registering the case suo motu in respect of the offences under the Central Act and finally, whether the procedure followed by the Lokayuktha police in invoking the provisions of Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of investigation under the Central Act, is contrary to the very provisions of the State Act, and thus amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

2. These are the questions of great importance which have been raised in this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and they call for an answer from this court.

3. The facts which have given rise to the above questions, briefly stated, are that the Lokayuktha Police Inspector (R-2 herein) registered a case against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the petitioner is in possession of the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, in Crime No.10/2008, which is pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalakote, and the present petition is tiled for quashing of the said F.I.R.

4. The facts, which are not in dispute are that, there is no written complaint filed by any person nor is there any reference by the Government to the Lokayuktha and secondly, R -2 Police Inspector has set the criminal law in motion by registering an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and has issued search warrant and investigation is being conducted by R-2 in respect of the aforementioned offences under the Central Act. It is in the background of these facts, the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this court.

5. The first and foremost ground urged is that the Lokayuktha police have no power to initiate proceedings under the Central Act and, therefore, exercising of the suo motu power by R-2 is in derogation of the provisions contained in the State Act.

6. The next contention that is urged in the petition is that on coming into force of the Lokayuktha Act on 11.2.1985, the investigation into the offences against the Government servants including the offences of corruption will have to be regulated by the provisions of the State Act and not the Central Act.

7. The third ground put forward is that a perusal of the provisions of the State Act will make it clear that the manner of investigation is regulated by Sections 7 and 9 of the State Act and insofar as Section 7 is concerned, the Lokayuktha may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of the persons named therein at sub-Clauses (i) to (iv), where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action and under Section 9 of the State Act, the investigation can proceed only following the complaint being made in the prescribed form accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant in the manner prescribed. Therefore, barring these two courses mentioned in the State Act, there is no other mode of filing the complaint nor registering a case suo motu by the Lokayuktha police is permissible and, as such, the entire proceedings initiated by R-2 is without jurisdiction and is an abuse of the process of law.

8. The next ground of attack is that, having regard to Sections 4 and 5 of the Cr.P.C. and also having regard to the fact that the State Act is a special Act and being a local Act, a reading of the relevant provisions of the State Act and the aforementione