1. Whether a Police officer working on deputation to the Lokavuktha office is empowered to register of investigate the officers falling exclusively within the domain of Indian Penal Code is a question of great importance that has arisen in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The facts in brief are that the Assistant Engineer, Technical Wing of Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, submitted a report to the Police Inspector Bureau of Investigation, Lokayuktha, Gulbarga, stating that 12 number bogus bills amounting to Rs.2,79,398/-were prepared by the Engineers working in SBC, Sub-Division No.11, Krishnapur, in favour of one Honkarappa, Contractor and fictitious measurements were recorded in N.B.No.18991/266 and the measurements were recorded in the name of one Sri B.Shankarappa, Assistant Engineer and measured by Sri Gopal Naik, Assistant Executive Engineer (who is reported to be dead) and all the 12 bills were admitted for payment by Sri C.Viswanath, Executive Engineer and payment was recommended. The report also mentioned that the 12 bills were found to be bogus by the Accounts Superintendent and therefore the investigation revealed that all the 12 bills were prepared with malafide intention to cause financial loss to the Government. Based on the said report which was sent to the police Inspector of Lokayuktha, Gulbarga, a case was registered in Cr.No.345/95 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 511 of IPC and change sheet was submitted against these accused persons and the 7th accused-Gopal Naik was found to be dead and hence the case stood abated against him.

3. Of the six accused persons, the petitioners herein who are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. praying for discharge and contended in their application that the Lokayuktha police have no powers to investigate into the offences alleged against the petitioners and the entire investigation is invalid, being contrary to the statutory provisions. Further, the alleged offences though said to have taken a place during December 1992, the charge sheet was submitted after eight years in the year 2000. The charge sheet does not disclose important ingredients of the alleged offences. On these and other grounds mentioned in the application, the petitioners sought discharge.

4. On behalf of the State, objection was filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Judge after considering the contentions putforward, ultimately, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners as well as by the State and issued directions to the Government to produce certain documents and the matter was posted for framing charge. The order of the learned trial Judge is assailed in this petition.

5. I have heard Sri S.R.Desai, assisted by Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijayakumar, Spl. SPP.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the Police Inspector attached to the Lokayuktha office has no power to register and investigate into offences which fall exclusively within the sphere of IPC. In the instant case, all the offences alleged against the petitioners and others are in respect of the offences falling under the IPC alone and no other enactments. Therefore, registration of the case by the Inspector of Police of Lokayuktha is invalid and all the investigation thereon also cannot be sustained in law.

7. Elaborating the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a Police Officer posted to work in the Lokayuktha office on deputation has no powers to investigate into offences which fall within IPC and various notifications issued by the Government clearly limit the powers and functions of the Police Officers working on deputation in Lokayuktha office and they are empowered only to investigate the offences which fall within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short’ t