Dr. AR, LAKSHMANAN, J.

Heard Mr. Bhaskaran Pillai for the appellant and Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The appellant as petitioner filed O.P. No. 4437 of 2000 to quash Ext. P5 government order and Ext. P6 order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in C.M.P. No. 5 of 2000 in C.C. No. 3 of 1998 dated 31st January, 2000 and to declare that the continuation of the proceedings in C.C. No. 3 of 1998 now pending before the Vigilance Court and Enquiry Tribunal is an abuse of the process of Court. A preliminary investigation was conducted against the appellant who was working as an Assistant Surgeon in the District Hospital, Thrissur on the basis of a complaint Ext. P1 filed by one Sabu Sadanandan. Investigation was conducted by the Inspector attached to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur and on culmination of the same the Deputy Superintendent attached to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur registered Crime Case No. 7/96 against the appellant under S. 13(i)(d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Investigation in the offence was thereupon conducted by two Inspectors who were examined as P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 in C.C. No. 3 of 1998. He was also charge-sheeted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. As per S. 17(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by a public servant can be investigated only by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. During examination of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, namely, the officer who was examined as P.W. 6 in the Crime Case, it was revealed that the investigation in the case was conducted by a Circle Inspector C.W. 1, as authorised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant thus came to know the illegality committed by the investigating agency only when the officer who registered the case was examined before Court. After obtaining the attested copy of the deposition the appellant filed a petition during the trial stage itself against the illegality in the investigation. Thereupon the prosecution filed Ext. P5 government order by which all the Circle Inspectors of the State were authorised to conduct investigation in the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by a public officer which is against the spirit of S. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the investigation conducted by the Circle Inspector is valid since it is authorised by the Government under the proviso to S. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was also held that the said investigation has not prejudiced the accused appellant. The appellant challenged the Government order Ext. P5 and the order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge under Ext. P6.

3. In Ground G in the original petition it is stated as follows :-

"What is contemplated in the proviso is that the Government can in the appropriate case either by general or special order appoint a police officer for conducting investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act a Police Officer mentioned therein is a named officer and general order for conducting investigation under some special circumstance. By invoking the powers conferred by the proviso the Government cannot make the main provision a mockery and can permit all inspectors in the State to conduct investigation. If harmonious construction is adopted by giving life to all the provisions then only a particular police officer alone can be appointed by invoking the proviso. The State Government is denying power for legislating over the files by virtue of the proviso. The guidelines prescribed in the main provision and the object envisaged in the preamble are to be taken note of while legislating over this field. The present order Ext. P5 is bad due to excessive