ORDER C.K. Prasad, J. -- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dt. 28.12.94 passed by the Special Judge, Dhar, in Sp. Case No. 4/93. The petitioner has filed an application before the Special Judge, for dropping up the criminal proceedings and by the aforesaid order the same has been rejected. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present application are that one Deepakbhai Patel, gave an information to the Supdt. of Police of the Special Police Establishment stating therein that he is the Manager of the Appex Electro Statistics. He has further stated in his application that he has filed return in the office of Central Excise and the petitioner, who happens to be a Superintendent of Central Excise, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- for clearance of the monthly forms. Said Patel, in his information, further stated that he did not want to give illegal gratification to the Superintendent and desired that he be apprehended. Accordingly, a trap was led on 31.1.1994 and Rs. 5,000/- alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 3. Shri Saxena, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the conduct of investigation and submissions of the challan by the Special Police Establishment is totally unauthorised. As such the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence on the basis of totally unauthorised investigation. 4. Shri G. Desai, Dy. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Special Police Establishment has been declared as a 'Police Station'. The Dy. Supdt. of Police in the Special Police Establishment is competent to investigate the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. To butress his submission, Shri Saxena has drawn my attention to the preamble of the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Adhiniyam 1981 (Act No. 37 of 1981) wherein it has been stated that the institution of Lokayukt and Uplokayukt have been constituted for making enquiry into the allegations against public servants. 6. Shri Saxena has further drawn my attention to S. 7 which confers powers on Lokayukt/uplokayukt for making enquiry on a complaint or other information. 6. Shri Saxena has further drawn my attention to S. 7 which confers powers on Lokayukt/uplokayukt for making enquiry on a complaint or other information. He pointedly drawn my attention to the explanation to S. 7 which reads thus-- "Sec. 7: Matters which may be enquired into by Lokayukt or Uplokayukt -- Subject to the provisions of this Act, on receiving complaint or other information (i) the Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation made against a public servant in relation to whom the Chief Minister is the competent authority; (ii) the uplokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation made against any public servant other than that referred to in clause (i): Provided that the Lokayukt may enquire into an allegation made against any public servant referred to in clause (ii). Explanation -- For the purpose of this section, the expression 'may proceed to enquire' and 'may enquire' include investigation by police agency put at the disposal of Lokayukt and Uplokayukt in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 13. 7. Shri Saxena has further drawn my attention to S. 4 of M.P. Special Police Establishment Act 1947 (M.P. Act No. XVII of 1947) whereby the Superintendence of the M.P. Special Police Establishment was vested in the Lokayukt and Uplokayukt appointed under S. 3 of the Act No. 37 of 1981. 8. The terms 'Officer' and 'Public Servant' have been defined under S. 2 (a) and 2 (g) of the Act which read as follows: Sec. 2 (a): 'Officer' means a person appointed to a public service of post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Sec. 2 (g): 'Public Servant' means person falling under any o.f the following categories, namely: (i) Minister, (ii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and Neta Pratipaksha; (iii) an officer referred to in clause (a); (iv) an officer of an apex Cooperative Society or District Cooperative Society within the meaning of clause (u) of S. 2 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (No. 17 of 1961); (v) Any person holding any office in, or any employee of (i) a Government Company within the meaning of S. 617 of the Companies Act 1956; or (ii) a Corporation of local authority established by State Government under a Central or State enactment. (vi) (a) Up-Kulpati, Adhyacharya and Kul-Sachiva of the Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya constituted under S. 3 of Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya Act 1956 (No. 19 of 1956); (b) Kulpati and Registrar of the lawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishvavidyalaya constituted under S. 3 of the lawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act 1963 (No. 19 of 1963); (c) Kulpati, Rector and Registrar of Vishwavidyalaya constituted under S. 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 (No. 22 of 1973). It is not disputed that the petitioner who is a Central Government exmployee does not come within the definition of 'Officer' or 'Public Servant'. 9. According to Shri Saxena, the Lokayukt and Uplokayukt having no power to make enquiry in respect of the petitioner, who happens to' be a Central Government employee and the Special Police Establishment constituted under Act No. XVII of 1947, which is nothing more than the limb of Lokayukt and Uplokayukt no investigation was possible to be made by the Special Police Establishment. To use his expression when the master has no power then the subordinate is necessarily not possessed of the said power. 10. S. 2 of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act 1947 enables the State Government to constitute Special Police Force to be called as 'M.P. Special Police Establishment'. S. 3 of the said Act confers power to the State Government to specify offence or offences to be investigated by the Special Police Establishment. It is not disputed that by the notification No. 111-89-I-(VI)-59 published on 1.11.1959, in exercise of its power conferred under S. 3 of the Act XVII of 1947, notified that the Special Police Est1blishment shall have the power to investigate offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The submissions of Shri Saxena that Superintendence of the Special Police Establishment has been vested in Lokayukt, it does not possess more power than what is possessed by Lokayukt and Uplokayukt, if accepted, result... into wiping out of Special Police Est1blishment for all purposes excepting that it will become a wing of the Lokayukt. It is to be borne in mind that S. 2 of the M.P. Act No. XVII of 1947 enables the State Government to constitute a Special Police Establishment and as such this establishment is a creature of the aforesaid statute. Mere fact that the superintendence of the said establishment is vested in the Lokayukt will not wipe out its existence altogether. Mere fact that the superintendence of the said establishment is vested in the Lokayukt will not wipe out its existence altogether. The word 'superintendence' used in S. 4 (1) of the Act No. XVII of 1947 came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Khemchand v. Superintendent of Police and another (Misc. Cr. Case No. 1497/93) decided on 20.7.94. The learned single Judge while deciding the aforesaid case held as under: "The word 'Superintendence' would imply administrative control enabling the authority enjoying such power to give directions to the subordinate to discharge its administrative duties and functions in the manner indicated in the order. (AIR 1980 SC 327). But while investigating the offence, the police officer should exercise the powers as vested in him under the statute and Cr.P.C. and to that extent, he enjoys statutory power." 11. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that vesting of the superintendence of the Special Police Est1blishment in the Lokayukta, will not wipe out the very existence of the Establishment itself. It is not disputed that the Special Police Est1blishment has been declared as a 'Police Station' and the matter was investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Dy. Supdt. of Police. As such, I have no hesitation in holding that the Special Police Establishment had necessary powers to investigate the offence against the petitioner and his employment with the Central Government and vesting of former's superintendence with Lnkayukt did not bar the authority of the Special Police Establishment to investigate the offences. 12. The necessary result of the aforesaid discussion is that this petition deserves dismissal and I do accordingly.