ORDER R.P. Gupta, J. 1. The accused/petitioner has been charge sheeted for offence under section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as prima facie case has been found against him in Special Case No. 9/1998 investigated by police of Lokayukt. The order of directing framing of charge is dated 13-5-1999. 2. The petitioner is a reader in Jabalpur University which is a university constituted by the State of M.P. under M. P. Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam No. 22 of 1973. He was appointed as internal examiner for the students of M.B.B.S. Pre-final. He demanded Rs. 5000/- from a student. Vijay Singh for passing him in the internal examination. Vijaysingh complained to Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment attached to office of Lokayukt and a trap was laid by the police. The accused was caught red handed taking money and after investigation charge sheet was filed. On that basis charge has been framed by the Special Judge. 3. In this revision petition the petitioner raises 2 legal points -- (i) That the police working under Lokayukta could not exercise jurisdiction to investigate as accused is not one of the officers enumerated in Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, against whom the Lokayukt can investigate. So the investigation was without jurisdiction. It may be that the local police or special police could make the investigation. (ii) That in his capacity as an internal examiner for M.B.B.S. he could not be said to be public servant as anybody, even the professor of a private college, could be so appointed. 4. The investigation in this case has been done by Special Police Establishment attached to the office of Lokayukt. Special Police Establishment was established under M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (Act No. 17 of 1947). The preamble of the Act provided its aims and objects as to make provisions for the constitution of the Special Police force for investigation of certain offences affecting the public administration, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and jurisdiction of members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences. So the whole idea was to provide a special force for investigation of certain offences affecting public administration for the State of Madhya Pradesh. So the whole idea was to provide a special force for investigation of certain offences affecting public administration for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 2 of this Act provides that the State Government may constitute special police force to be called Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment for the investigation of offences notified under section 3. This was notwithstanding anything contained in the Police Act, 1861. This section further prescribes powers of the special police establishment that the members of this police establishment shall have powers in relation to the investigation of notified offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers have in connection with the investigation of offences. This section further provides that any member of this force of or above the rank of sub-inspector may, subject to any orders which the State Government may make in this behalf, exercise any of the powers of an officer in charge of a police station in the area in which he is for the time being. 5. The State Government of M. P. has issued notification No. F. 15-2(I)-89 XLIX-10 dated 28-11-1989 published in M. P. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 29-11-1989, in exercise of the powers under section 3 of this Act specifying offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as offences which are to be investigated by M. P. Special Police Establishment and also conspiracy in respect of these offences. 6. Section 4 was added to this Act by M.P. Act No. 19/1984. It was laid down that Superintendence of M. P. Special Police Establishment shall vest in the Lokayukt appointed under M. P. Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981. The administration of this police establishment shall vest in the Inspector General of Police, M. P. who shall exercise in respect of this police establishment such of the powers exercisable by him in respect of the police force as the State Government may specify in this behalf. 7. A perusal of these provisions clearly shows that although the special police establishment is under superintendence of Lokayukt, its administration and control vests in Inspector General of Police. Of course, the State Government can provide the extent of that control and administration by the Inspector General of Police of members of special police establishment. 8. 7. A perusal of these provisions clearly shows that although the special police establishment is under superintendence of Lokayukt, its administration and control vests in Inspector General of Police. Of course, the State Government can provide the extent of that control and administration by the Inspector General of Police of members of special police establishment. 8. It also becomes clear that members of special police establishment, for investigation of notified offences exercise same powers as an officer in charge of police station. They have powers to register an F.I.R. in their area and can file challan according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. In doing so, their investigation is not the same as inquiries by Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt under Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981. The special police establishment, therefore, can investigate the offences by public servants so defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the offences are punishable under that Act. The M. P. Special Police Establishment Act does not give any separate definition to a public servant. The notification under section 3 of this Act refers to offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. These offences are committed by 'public servants' as defined in that Act. The conspiracy may be committed by others also. So the special police establishment members can deal with these offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. For this reason the definition of public servant given in M. P. Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 is not relevant to find out the extent of jurisdiction of members of M. P. Special Police Establishment. Lokayukt Adhiniyam prescribes the extent of jurisdiction of Lokayukt or Up- Lokayukt. Section 7 of the Lokayukt Adhiniyam provides for matters which may be enquired into by Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt on receiving complaint or other information. The Up-Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation made against any public servant other than that in respect of whom Chief Minister is competent authority and Lokayukt may enquire into allegations against all public servants. Of course these enquiries include 'investigation by police agency at disposal of Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt' in pursuance of section 33 of the Adhiniyam which authorises the Lokayukt to utilise the services of any investigating agency of the State or Central Government. Of course these enquiries include 'investigation by police agency at disposal of Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt' in pursuance of section 33 of the Adhiniyam which authorises the Lokayukt to utilise the services of any investigating agency of the State or Central Government. The Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt shall send his report in writing to the competent authority who shall examine the report and within the prescribed time intimate to Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt about the action taken. So that is a separate procedure. These enquiries are to be made in respect of those public servants who had been put under sway of Lokayukt or Up- Lokayukt. It is for that purpose that definition of public servant given in clause (g) of section 2 of the Lokayukt Adhiniyam is relevant. That definition has nothing to do with investigations by special police establishment for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. That is altogether a different field. Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt may also enquire into allegations of such offences by a public servant who is under the sway of these authorities and they may utilise the service of special police establishment. The investigation by special police establishment can result into filing of a challan against a public servant defined under the Provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. Even of no offence is found, it may file a final report under section section 173 Criminal Procedure Code. So the argument that the petitioner was not a public servant within the meaning of Lokayukt Adhiniyam is of no avail. If he was a public servant within definition of that word in Prevention of Corruption Act he could be proceeded against by Special Police Establishment for the offence committed by him. 10. The only other question was whether he was a public servant while acting as an internal examination for M.B.B.S. (In this respect the provisions of M. P. Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 (Act No. 22/1973) and statutes of Jabalpur Vishvavidyalaya framed under the Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam are important.) In this respect the definition of public servant in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 itself provides the answer. This definition in clause (c) of section 2 of that Act has 12 sub-clauses out of these clause (xi) reads as under:-- "2(c)(xi) -- Public servant means any person who is a Vice- Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection withholding or conducting examinations. Explanation 1 of clause (c) provides that persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not." 11. This clause (xi) did not exist in the old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. We are concerned with the 1988 Act. The accused was a reader in the Medical College attached to the Jabalpur University. He was acting as an internal examiner. 12. Section 34(3) of the M.P. Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam empowers the co-ordination committee of the University to draw up first statutes and ordinances and these shall come into force from the date as the Kuladhipati may by an order specify. There is procedure for subsequent statutes to be framed. Statute No. 29 is relevant for our purpose. Section 44 of the Adhiniyam makes provisions as to how the examiners shall be appointed by Kulpati. They shall be appointed in consultation with committee. The Dean of the faculty concerned shall be the Chairman. Statute 29 further deals with appointment of such examiners. As per this statute internal examiner has to be a teacher or professor of the medical college to which the examinee belongs. So internal examiner cannot be from an outside medical college. The present medical college is attached to the Jabalpur University which is established by the State. On this view of the matter also the accused was a public servant. But apart from that, clause (xi) of section 2(c) above noted includes every 'Reader' or 'professor', lecturer, teacher or even other employee of a university as a public servant. The accused was reader in the university in the Department of Medicine, and in that capacity he was appointed as internal examiner so he was a public servant. 13. Thus both the objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner have no merit. There is no other point urged. The accused must stand trial for the offence for which he has been charged. 13. Thus both the objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner have no merit. There is no other point urged. The accused must stand trial for the offence for which he has been charged. 14. The revision petition is dismissed. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court. Petition dismissed