The central legal point established is that the Inspector of Police has the authority to investigate and arrest public servants, including those not in the service of the Government, under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioner who was serving as the Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi was charged with offences punishable under section 7 and 13

(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Specifically referring to the embargo found under section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner who stood charged as stated above moved a petition invoking the provision under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for discharge from the criminal prosecution launched by the respondent in Special CC No.4 of 2005. The trial court having referred to the sanction accorded for prosecution as against the petitioner herein without actually adverting to the ambit of section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was the main crux of the issue dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking discharge.

3. As already pointed out by this court, the petitioner was serving as the Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi. No doubt he comes under the definition of public servant as per section 2(c)(ix) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in as much as he was serving as a Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the petitioner does not fall under the category of the officer belonging to Group A or Group B of the service of the Government of Tamilnadu. Therefore the G.O.s referred to by the respondent police, as though the Inspector of Police has been conferred with the power to investigate and arrest without warrant for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would not apply to the petitioner. He would also submit that the Inspector of police who has investigated the case in this matter has not been empowered either to investigate or to arrest without warrant. The petitioner has been serving as the Secretary of the Co-operative Society and was not in the services of the Government. Therefore, he would submit that the whole investigation embarked upon by the respondent police is tainted with illegality and as a result of which discharge as prayed for is warranted.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit referring to three Government Orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu that the Inspector of Police has been conferred with the power to investigate and arrest without warrant any of the public servants as contemplated under the definition part of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is his submission that the petitioner has set up a very technical stand on the premises, that no power was conferred on the Inspector of Police either to investigate the case or to arrest an accused public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, he would submit that the plea for discharge is not at all tenable.

6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a public servant as defined under section 2(c)(ix) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as he was serving as the Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the trial court has gone out of track and has passed an order that the petitioner is not entitled to discharge as prayed for without determining the point in issue raised by the petitioner herein. The petitioner had not challenged the sanction accorded in this case for prosecution against the petitioner. The only challenge made by the petitioner is that as per section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only the District Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank alone is empowered to investigate the case.

7. The first proviso found under section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would read that, if a police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Po