Jain, J. -- 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 MP. (1995 JLJ 225) and Harmahendra Singh v. State of MP. (Cr. Appeal No. 865/96) decided on 12.5.2000 as to the interpretation of section 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 (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. Lokayukta Evam Up-Lokayukt