( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocates for the respective applicants, and Mr. P. G. Desai, the learned P. P. for the respondent-State.

( 2 ) AL1 these applications raise a common question of law and with the consent of the learned Advocates, are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

( 3 ) THE succinct facts are : The applicants in all these applications are public servants who have been charged for commission of offence punishable under Secs. 7 and 13 (1) (d), read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). . I am informed that in neither of the cases, the trial has yet begun. In some of the matters, charge has been framed against the accused-applicants while in some of the matters, even the charge is yet to be framed. At this stage, the applicants-accused made application before the trial Court seeking discharge on the ground that the investigation carried out by the concerned Police inspectors of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in respect of the respective offences was illegal and is contrary to the provisions contained in Sec. 17 of the Act. The reports made by such officers are, therefore, null and void and the Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to proceed further on the basis of such reports. It was, therefore, prayed that the Court may declare that the cognizance of offence taken by the trial court on the basis of unauthorised report of the investigating officer is illegal and for consequential reliefs. The said applications were heard and rejected by the learned trial Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have preferred these revision applications before this Court under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 4 ) MR. A. D. Shah has submitted that the investigation in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed under the Act is governed by Sec. 17 of the Act. Section 17 provides for the persons authorised to investigate in respect of such offences. Clause (a) thereof relates to the cases of Delhi Special Police Establishment; clause (b) thereof relates to metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and ahmedabad and any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and Clause (c) thereof relates to the areas other than the metropolitan areas. Section 17 provides that no police officer below the rank stipulated in the respective clause shall investigate any offence punishable under the Act, without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of first Class; as the case may be or make arrest therefor without a warrant. First proviso thereof empowers the State Government to make general or special order to authorise the police officer not below the rank of the Inspector of Police to investigate such offence without the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate or a magistrate of First Class, as the case may be. Second proviso thereof deals with the offences referred to in Clause (e) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13. In all these applications, we are concerned with the offence committed within the metropolitan area of the city of Ahmedabad and in respect of offence alleged to have been committed under Secs. 7 and Sec. 13 (l) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Act. Clause (b) of Sec. 17 provides, as aforesaid, that in the metropolitan areas no police officer below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under the Act. Mr. Shah has submitted that in all the matters before this court, the investigation in respect of respective offence has been carried out by the officer of the rank of Police Inspector, who indisputably is an officer below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, which is expressly barred by Clause (b) of Sec. 17. It is submitted that hence the investigation made by the respective investigating officers is without the authority of law and no proceeding could have been initiated on the basis of such report. He, th