The court established the principle that the M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Special Police Establishment to investigate offences of bribery and corruption committed by Central Government employees, aligning with the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as a social legislation intended to curb illegal activities of public servants.

( 1 ) IT is aptly said : "a Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases" Lord Denning.

( 2 ) WE are also required to iron out some such creases which have surfaced on account of two single Bench conflicting decisions of this Court in S. G. Pathak v. State of M. P. 1995 Jab LJ 225 and Harmahendra Singh v. State of M. P. (Cri. Appeal No. 865/96) decided on 12-5-2000 as to the interpretation of S. 3 of the M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (for short, 'the M. P. Act of 1947' ). On reference being made by one of us (Jain, J.) these matters have been placed by the Order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, before us to answer the question extracted below :"whether the M. P. Special Police Establishment, constituted under the M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, has power to investigate into the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also the Act of 1988, against the employees of the Central Government?

( 3 ) IN S. G. Pathak (1995 Jab LJ 225) (supra), Hon'ble Prasad, J. sitting at Indore, on consideration of the provisions of the M. P. Act of 1947 with particular reference to the M. P. Lok-Ayukta Evam Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short, "the M. P. Act of 1981"), held :"the result of the aforesaid discussion is that vesting of superintendence of the Special Police Establishment in the Lok Ayukta, will not wipe out the very existence of the Establishment itself. It is not disputed that the Special Police Establishment has been declared as a 'police Station' and the matter was investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police. As such I have no hesitation in holding that the Special Police Establishment has necessary powers to investigate the offence against the petitioner and his employment with the Central Government and vesting of former's superintendence with Lok-Ayukta did not bar the Authority of Special Police Establishment to investigate the offences".

( 4 ) HOWEVER, in Harmahendra Singh (supra) Hon'ble Khare, J. at Jabalpur took a contrary view and held :the object of the M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 as appears from its long title and the Preamble is to make provisions for the constitution of Special Police Force for the investigation of certain offences affecting public administration, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and jurisdiction of the members of the said force in regard to investigation of the said offences, therefore, the area of operation of M. P. Special Police Establishment has been specifically carved out. It is not disputed that it has jurisdiction to investigate the offences committed by a public servant or officers appointed to public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh. ". The learned single Judge concluded :"it appears that the Officers of the M. P. Special Police Establishment at Raipur, exceeded their jurisdictional limit and entrenched upon the field allotted to another specialised investigation agency. Inspector Naidu (PW. 5) suffered from jurisdictional incompetence but lay the trap against the accused who was in the employment of the Central Government. "

( 5 ) IT may be stated at the outset that the decision in S. G. Pathak (1995 Jab LJ 225) was not brought to the notice of the Bench at Jabalpur when it decided the appeal in Harmahendra Singh's case. The latter decision could, therefore, be termed as per incuriam i. e. made in ignorance of the earlier decision of this Court in S. G. Pathak. Be that as it may, we proceed to consider and decide the question referred to us.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Mahendra Bhatnagar, Sr. counsel appearing with Mr. Chouhan; Mr. H. S. Uberoi, Sr. counsel appearing with Mr. P. Prasad for the petitioners; and, Mr. G. Desai, Dy. AG for respondent State.

( 7 ) MR. Bhatnagar and Mr. Uberoi have advanced more or less similar arguments and it was contended