The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police has jurisdiction to investigate and conduct the trial for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in view of Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 and Section 17 of the Corruption Act.

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

The Division Bench of this court in M.Cr.Case No. 17270/2016 (Bhawana Kale v. State of M.P.) doubted the correctness of earlier order of Division Bench in M.Cr.Case No. 9915/2015 (Ravindra Kumar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and the matter was referred to the Larger Bench. However, when the matter was placed before the Full Bench, it was held that the question of law has not been formulated for its opinion and the petitioner had moved an application to withdraw the petition, therefore, the Full Bench did not address on merit and the matter was ordered to be placed before the Division Bench. On 08-09-2017, when the matter was placed before the Division Bench, this court formulated the following question of law, which is required to be decided by this Larger Bench:-

"Whether in view of Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, the police has jurisdiction to investigate and conduct trial for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?"

2. Before we advert to question of law to be answered by this Bench, it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Ravindra Kumar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed that in view of the provision of Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Police Establishment Act, 1947, the local police has no jurisdiction to investigate and file charge-sheet under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The said order passed in the case of Ravindra Kumar Dubey (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing a SLP No. 6437/2016, which was disposed of by Hon'ble the Apex Court by an order dated 03-05-2017. In paras 3 and 4 of its order, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :

"3. In our opinion, the High Court mis-adventured in quashing the proceedings in the manner in which the order has been passed. The High Court should have been little more careful while quashing the proceedings. Be that as it may, as agree to, the impugned order is set aside."

4. The respondents to raise the question about competency of the office to investigate the matter before the trial court as and when occasion arises during the course of trial."

As such the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Dubey (supra) has been set aside and therefore, the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Ravindra Kumar Dubey (supra) no more exists.

3. Now we advert to the question of law, which is to be answered by this Bench. It is apposite to refer certain provisions of the statute. Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1947) provides that the State Government may, by notifications specify the offences or classes of offences, which are to be investigated by (Madhya Pradesh) Special Police Establishment, however, there is no provision in the Act to bar the investigation, vested in the local police. The investigation of the offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to ac Corruption Act) is governed by Section 17 of the Corruption Act, which provides as under :

"17. Persons authorized to investigate.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank.-

(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;

(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;

(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided that if a p