Judgment : With the consent of both the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is seeking for quashing the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge dated 21st June, 1996 directing investigation under Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. A private complaint has been filed under provisions of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that subsequent to the petitioner assuming public office, she acquired the properties and earned income disproportionate to the known sources of her income. The learned Judge has observed that the allegations in the complaint require further investigation into the matter for the purpose of deciding whether there is sufficient ground before issuing process to the accused. He has also observed that on the available materials, process cannot be issued to the accused and an investigation can be made by a competent authority to find out whether income received is from a any lawful source and this cannot be decided without further investigation into the matter. While observing so, he has made certain expressions about the conduct expected of persons in public life and their conduct after assumption of office, non-accountability etc. The petitioner found fault with the expressions made in the course of the order and also the naming of a person and directing the manner of investigation. 4. The Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, (1945)1 M.L.J. 86: A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 18: 217 I.C. 1: 46 Crl. L.J. 413: 1945 M.W.N. 49: 1945 M.W.N. (Crl.) 9, has held that judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposed upon them the duty of an enquiry. This Court in T.Paul Durai v. Commissioner of Police, Madras, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 178 has held that it is the exclusive prerogative of police to proceed with the investigation, gather materials and the Court need not give direction to make investigation in a particular manner. This Court in T.Paul Durai v. Commissioner of Police, Madras, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 178 has held that it is the exclusive prerogative of police to proceed with the investigation, gather materials and the Court need not give direction to make investigation in a particular manner. In the case State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, (1963)1 Crl.L.J. 341 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held that Police has statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged offence and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with except in appropriate case when moved to give directions if the investigation is perfunctory lackadaisical or to screen the offender or in any other manner, not in public interest. 5. It may be stressed that the efficiency of a police organisation is dependant upon experience and ability of the supervising of staff who are required not only to exercise control over the officer and men under them but also to guide them in their work and the Head of the Wing is the best suited person to get the investigation done by a competent person available in the Department having regard to his assessment of the situation, capability, keeping in view who can shoulder the responsibility. 6. It is no doubt, expressions made as to how persons in power have to conduct themselves are unwarranted. But these expressions made by the learned Judge may be taken as well-meaning expressions for one’s introspection regarding conduct of men in public life and need not influence or create an impression in the mind of the investigating officer. In other words, impression should not move into action while investigating the averments in the complaint. The learned Judge, who opined that enquiry into the allegations in the complaint is necessary, ought to have lift the manner and method and how and by whom the investigation has to be made to the discretion of the Head of the Department concerned. It is submitted that in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption is in-charge of such cases. Though-naming an officer in some degree suggests directing the course of investigation, still in the absence of any allegation against the officer named, it need not be viewed otherwise. But the manner how the direction is worded is not correct. Though-naming an officer in some degree suggests directing the course of investigation, still in the absence of any allegation against the officer named, it need not be viewed otherwise. But the manner how the direction is worded is not correct. The model of the decision need not become a ground for interference, unless the decision itself is bad in law. A wrong model of the order at best can be termed as “irregular curve” than a straight directing but for that the order itself need not be interfered with. The Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption to take such appropriate steps to comply with the order, namely, to investigate the averments made in the complaint in accordance with law, if he so chooses, by any person of his choice including that of the person named by the learned Judge, Since there are no allegations made against the said officer, if the officer is working in the Department of Vigilance and Anti-corruption. 7. For the reasons aforestated, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. Nos.2633, 2634 and 2834 of 1996 also are dismissed.