Judgment : The petitioner is seeking for an anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the respondents. Briefly stated his case is that he belongs to A.I.A.D.M.K. political party and has been a Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for five consecutive terms and served as Minister for Transport and Forest Department for five years from 1991 to 1996 and he is also working as Propaganda Secretary of A.I.A.D.M.K. party. He has alleged that he has been falsely implicated due to political animosity and denied his liability for any act committed by the Corporations, such as Rajiv Gandhi Transport Corporation, Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation, Anna Transport Corporation and Jeeva Transport Corporation, in the appointment of officers, transfers and in the purchase of buses etc. He has also denied that there were any irregularities and corruption in the purchase of Dim and Bright Automatic equipment for Rajiv Gandhi Transport Corporation and irregularities in the appointment of Junior Assistants. He has complained of high handedness under instructions of the ruling party leaders to curtail the political activity and propaganda work for the forthcoming Panchayat Elections. He has also urged that he has no bad antecedents and not acquired any properties disproportionate to his income and he has filed his income-tax returns till date. 2. It is stated by respondent No. 1 that a case in Crime No.12/AC/96/HQ has been registered against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the credible information that during his tenure as Minister for Transport and Forest in the Government of Tamil Nadu and earlier as Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (1989-June, 96), he had acquired properties and pecuniary resources in his name and in the names of his family members, relatives and other associates who are believed his benamies, which are far beyond his known sources of income. During the preliminary verification of the information, the respondents listed the properties acquired in the names of several persons and the value shown in the relevant deeds and as recorded in the documents, the total value of the properties including the stamp duty paid is about Rs.2.5 crores. In the course of investigation, on 9. 1996 on the basis of search warrants, it is stated that possession of various assets including bank records and relevant documents have come to the notice of the respondents. 3. In the course of investigation, on 9. 1996 on the basis of search warrants, it is stated that possession of various assets including bank records and relevant documents have come to the notice of the respondents. 3. Respondent No.2 herein submitted that a case is pending in Crime No.4 of 1996 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D. Vellore at Salem for offences under Sec. 120-B read with 109 read with 409 and 418, I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Thiru D.Paramasivam, former Managing Director of Anna Transport Corporation on the allegation that during 1993-96 certain purchases of spare parts were made on behalf of Anna Transport Corporation, violating the procedures from nonexistent dealers, certain works were carried out in the work without using the facility available in the Corporation itself, printed tickets at exorbitant rates without following the procedure and procured excess stationary items beyond its requirements. The said case was registered on 28. 1996 on a complaint given by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department. 4. During investigation of the above case, it was found that there are clear instructions with regard to purchase of the components, stationary etc., as per the 74th Board Meeting held on 30.3.1984. According to that a list of suppliers was prepared by the Purchase Committee on the basis of Small Scale Industries Unit and authorised dealers. Any addition or deletion of the above list of suppliers should be made once in three months by the Purchase Committee Investigation reveals that the above procedures were not followed in placing orders for purchase. The oral and documentary evidence collected so far reveal that the petitioner, who was the then Transport Minister, his erstwhile P.A.Ezhil, one Thiru Natarajan, who was close to the Minister, the former Managing Director Thiru. D.Paramasivam and others conspired to make purchase without following proper procedure for exorbitant amounts, thereby enriched themselves as well as facilitated others to make pecuniary gains. In that process, they have misappropriated funds belong to the Corporation which is a Government Company and thereby made wrongful loss to the tune of about one crore rupees to the Government and wrongful gain to themselves. In that process, they have misappropriated funds belong to the Corporation which is a Government Company and thereby made wrongful loss to the tune of about one crore rupees to the Government and wrongful gain to themselves. On the basis of the statement of Natarajan and Ezhil Implicated the petitioner that it was at his behest purchases were made and the said Natarajan was paid Rs. 10,000 per month for this work and a consideration amount went to the share of the petitioner. It is stated by respondent No.2 that the witnesses examined the documents collected during investigation confirmed the role played by the petitioner herein that he, his P.A., former Managing Director and the said Natarajan conspired to cheat the Anna Transport Corporation and misappropriated its funds. It is stated that the records maintained at the office of the Corporation show that messages were given at the instance of the petitioner regarding the purchase of spare parts etc. The manner how deviation of the earlier instructions of the Board, not placing orders to the list of suppliers prepared by the Purchase Committee, purchase without following proper procedure and purchase for exorbitant amounts indicate the vital role played by the petitioner in all these acts. The respondents have catalogued the nature of acts committed, manner how committed persons employed, object to be achieved, properties acquired and the loss caused to the Government and wrongful gain to those who perpetrated the alleged act, suggest prima facie case. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that there are several Committees constituted for purchase and he was nowhere responsible for the alleged acts. Wherever any impropriety in the dealing has been alleged, the Minister cannot escape responsibility on the score that he himself passed orders in respect of the transaction. Very vital principle which must be kept in view is that a person on becoming a minister becomes the custodian of public interests. He should formulate his activities and his role has got to be that of a pioneer rather than of a pirate, of a public sentinel rather than of a self-seeker, of one dedicated to the public weal and not one obsessed with the desire of personal gain and he had a moral responsibility to see that all officials discharge their public duties in accordance with law. That corruption amongst highly placed persons has assumed a menacing proportion which has hampered to a large extent the progress of the society towards prosperity. When allegations of corruption are made, the Courts have to be very wary of throttling the legitimate investigation of such cases; otherwise it may bring to halt even the legitimate investigation in its tracks and thereby encourage the persons, with allegations of corruption against them, to mock at the investigating agency and the society, having successfully stalled the effective investigation of the case. Therefore, a more pragmatic approach is needed at the investigation stage, if motherly leniency towards people accused of high corruption is shown in the nature of things, it may be quite difficult to unearth all the ramifications of corruptions, indulged in by those accused of corruption. In such an event, the end result would be well-high impossible for the investigating agency to effectively and successfully investigate such cases and bringing the culprits to book. 6. The petitioner has contended that the action is actuated by mala fides. How, by whom and in what manner is not stated and the burden is on the petitioner. This contention deserves to be rejected for want of particulars. The other contention is that he being Propaganda Secretary arresting him amounts to affecting the prospects of the A.I.A.D.M.K. party in the local board elections/ Afterall, one individual is not indispensable in any political party organisation. It is not his case that he is a candidate in the election. It is not unknown, persons being in custody have contested and won in the election. So long his presence is not indispensable, and there may be any number of Secretaries of the Taluk level, District level and State level and the process of propaganda can be resorted to by those persons, who belong to the organisation. The respondents have duty and right to investigate. That right cannot be whittle down on the allegation of likelihood or impact on election prospects. Therefore, the contention that his arrest would him and destroy the chance of his party in the local board election is too farfetched and does not merit any consideration. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the earlier statement made by the Public Prosecutor on 20.8.1996 revealed that there were no materials against the petitioner and subsequent registration is with a mala fide intention. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the earlier statement made by the Public Prosecutor on 20.8.1996 revealed that there were no materials against the petitioner and subsequent registration is with a mala fide intention. It is stated in the additional objection, when Natarajan and others were arrested and on the basis of the materials seized in connection with a case registered against D.Paramasivam, the then Managing Director, the Investigating Officer after verification of the correspondences and the materials seized, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was also involved, on 9. 1996. Therefore, the earlier statement made will not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner to absolve him of the allegation made now. 8. The impact in the event of release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail is very likely to cover his tracks and make it impossible for police to unearth the entire gamut of the shady transaction, if any allegedly indulged in by the petitioner and the unearth the hidden wealth; if any, allegedly held by the petitioner in his own name or benami, by fore-warning his erstwhile collaborators, who if interrogated when the petitioner is locked up on custody, may make dangerous disclosures which they may not make of the petitioner is out and has an opportunity to tutor them and make them knowledgeable as to his own police statement. While being in custody, this would not be so easy for him to do. Therefore, in the interest of effective investigation, keeping in view the magnitude of the offence alleged and the prima facie material collected, it is not appropriate to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.