SHRIMAL J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner Hansram, Chairman of the Central Co-operative Bank, Sawai Madhopur got collected some money being presented to the Chief Minister towards "Chef Ministers Relief Fund." A complaint was lodged against unauthorised collection and Shri Brijendra Singh presented it to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur for inquiry, who transmitted it to the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur Learned Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur, reached the conclusion that the mode of collecting money was unauthorised. There were also cartain crasures in the account-books of the Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Wajirpura. On the basis of that report the then Collector, Sawai Madhpur, lodged a first information report with the Police Station, Gangapur City. The police registered a case (No. 210 on December 3, 1976 against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 468 Indian Penal Code. 3. The contetion of the petitioner is that he in fact wanted to collect an amount of Rs 5,000/- for being presented to the then Chief Minister Honble Shri Barkatullah Khan. However, an amount of Rs. 2,200/- only could be collected and as such he paid Rs. 5,001/- out of his own pocket and got the amount of Rs. 2,200/- deposited in Wajirpura Co operative Seciety. The case of the State is that in fact no amount had been deposited with the Society and only paper entries had been made. It has been urged by learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, that though an amount of Rs. 2,200/- was shown as deposited in the accounts in between April 22, 1973 to April 25, 1973, an amount of Rs. 2,000/ was shown as debited on April 25, 1975 towards the account of Ramoliram and Rs 200/- were shown debited towards the account of Ramjilal. No account has, however, been submitted in respect of these sums. It has also been argued that the Auditors found certain interpelations in the record. 4. No doubt, the petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Now the question arises whether the first information report was lodged with the intention to implicate a political rival in a false case for the purpose of disgracing him or with the intention to deregate his public image. 4. No doubt, the petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Now the question arises whether the first information report was lodged with the intention to implicate a political rival in a false case for the purpose of disgracing him or with the intention to deregate his public image. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently urged that the first information report was lodged at the time when the Congress Government was in power and the petitioner is alleged to be a member of that party and as such the question of foisting a false case for political vendatta does not arise. 5. An against the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 2,200/ obtatined against the receipt, was not retained by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State has urged that the than Chief Minister, after accepting the donation of Rs. 5,001/- announced a matching grant and thus an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was re donated for being spent over famine relief in Sawai Madhopur. That amount, State counsel addes, has not yet been shown either in the Collectorates record or at any other pleace and it is for the accused to explain as to what has happened to that amount. It has further been urged that the petitioner is being required by the police for the last more than seven months, but he has been avoiding appearance before the police. 6. A Full Bench of the Punjab High Court, while dealing with the provisions of grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 438 Cr. P. C., in Gurbaksh Singh Sibia vs. State of Punjab (1) has observed in Para 62 of the judgment as under:— "In order to successfully invoke the jurisdiction under section 438, the petitioner apart from satisfying all the conditions requisite under Section 437 must in addition make out a special case for securing an order of anticipatory fail which is of an exceptional type." In the same case it has farther been observed:— "Mere allegation of mala fides by an offender and a vehement claim of innocence put forward by him are manifestly insufficient for arriving at such a conclusion by the Court. To put the prosecutor to breef at the very inception of the investigations will be running counter to the whole scheme of investigation into cognizable cases is laid down in Chapter XII of the Code. This indeed, is not the stage for invoking the known man in of the Criminal Law that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. That stage arrives at the end of the investigation and in the course of the trial itself. The intention of the investigation is not a trial." 7. Section 438, Cr.P.C, does not contain unguided or uncanalised powers to pass an order for anticipatory bail. Such an order being of an exceptional type, can only be passed, if, apart from the conditions mentioned in Section 437, Cr. P.C., there is a special case made out for passing the order. 8. In Emperor vs. Khwaja Nasir Ahmed (2) their Lordships of the Privy Council observed at page 22:— "Thus the more serious aspect of the case is to be found in the resultant interference by the Court with the duties of the police. Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a court of justice so that he may be duty accuitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the atmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry." 9. Exposing and possibility of finding sufficient evidence to get punished those who had and have the destiny of the action at their command may appear as a political vendetta at the first night, but on a second thought its usefulness cannot be ignored. It impresses the public at large that violation of laws and swindling of public property is not a paying project. Grimes have their silent tangue, which roar and echoe in the atmosphere and ultimately law takes its own course. It will not be a small gain to the people, if law succeeds in installing basis honesty in our politicians at least out of fear, if not from any mate deceasy. 10. Let courts not show undue complacence, obsatrct and hamper the search for truth by interfering in investigation at every stage. It will not be a small gain to the people, if law succeeds in installing basis honesty in our politicians at least out of fear, if not from any mate deceasy. 10. Let courts not show undue complacence, obsatrct and hamper the search for truth by interfering in investigation at every stage. Antisocial adven-turar cannot claim for his unfarious activities larger regard thus for the defence of the society itself. It is equallexpected of the investigating officer, who is a police officer of a free democratic country, not to harass the accused involved in a crime but at the case time to investiage the case with due observance of law without fear of favour. 11. For these reasons, I find no ground to issue directions under sec 438, Cr.P.C. The application under sec. 438, Cr.P.C., is accordingly rejected.