ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. A Challan has been filed under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act) and also u/s. 13 (1) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988.) The framing of this charge was challenged on the ground that the investigation which were conducted in this case were conducted contrary to mandatory provisions of section 17 of the 1988 Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the normal procedure which has been indicated in the Act is that the investigation are to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of an equivalent rank. No doubt, according to the learned Counsel, the State Government can authorise a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector also to investigate, but according to the learned counsel, if this is to be done then reasons have to be recorded. 2. Before noticing the contentions raised by the learned counsel, the relevant provisions of Section 17 of 1988 Act be noticed. These read as under :- 17. Persons authorised to investigate. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank. - xx xx xx xx (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 police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may, be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant: xx xx xx xx Another factor which is required to be taken not of is that in exercise of the power conferred by the first proviso to section 17 of the 1988 Act, a notification has been issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government. This notification reads as under :- Notification No. F. 15-2 (III) -89 XLIX-10, dated the 28th November 1989. - The Exercise of the powers conferred by the First proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (No. 49 of 1988), the State Government, hereby authorises all the Inspectors of Police attached to the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment for the purpose of the said section. Thus, the State Government has authorised all the Inspectors of Police attached to the M.P. Special Police Establishment to be the officers who are to investigate offences for the purpose of the 1988 Act. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order by which an Inspector of Police is authorised to investigate should be preceded by a detailed administrative order cannot be accepted. The Legislature in its wisdom thought fit that under normal circumstances a Deputy Superintendent of police should investigate into offences falling under the Act of 1988. At the same time, the Legislature though it apt to authorise the State Government to nominate officers not below the rank of Inspectors of Police also to investigate such offences. A notification has since been issued. The act of issuing this notification is more or less a legislative act and no fault can be found with the exercise of this power. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajanlal and others., AIR 1992 SC 604 is not of apt this decision would not be attracted to the facts of tin's case. This is because that was a case where a decision was to be taken vis-a-viz one person only and that decision was to be taken in terms of last proviso to section 17. So far as first proviso to section 17 is concerned, as indicated above, the exercise of the powers by the State Government is more or less legislative and this having been validly exercised, no fault can be found with the same. This petition is without merit and is dismissed.