1. The petitioner claiming to be a 1st Class Gazetted officer of Government and involved in FIR No.117 of Police station Kupwara registered under Sections 409, 109, 420 RPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, apprehends his arrest in the case and seeks anticipatory bail on the ground that not being involved in any of the aforesaid offences and having already been subjected to custodial interrogation he deserves bail in anticipation of his re-arrest, particularly because if arrested, his career and reputation would suffer. During course of arguments his counsel besides reiterating the aforesaid ground has also contended that Kupwara police had no competence and jurisdiction to register the case and conduct investigations, because after addition of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the catalogue of offences the matter squarely landed within the province of Vigilance Organisation which alone could conduct investigations and as such registration of case and conduct of investigation by Kupwara police was illegal, etc. 2. I have heard Ld. Counsel gone through records and considered the matter. The story appears to have started with institution of a report before Deputy Commissioner Kupwara that during year 2004-2005 the present petitioner while posted as District Panchayat Officer Kupwara, concerned with some other official and non-official persons conducted fraud in purchase of commodes required to be installed in latrines constructed officially and thereby misappropriated funds to the tune of thirty two lac rupees, which was endorsed by him to concerned S.P. who marked it to the Police station where upon the aforesaid case was registered. During course of investigation it transpired that under Central Rural programme latrines were proposed to be constructed in compounds of selected persons living below the poverty line, Schools and Aanganwari centers, for which cement commodes were to be purchased from local self help groups. Pursuant to said scheme an action plan was drafted by the office of Deputy Commissioner Kupwara and issued vide order No. 629/DDK, dated 1.2.2005. According to the guidelines the locally supplied commodes etc were to be certified by the Engineering wing of Rural Development department as technically and financially viable. Pursuant to said scheme an action plan was drafted by the office of Deputy Commissioner Kupwara and issued vide order No. 629/DDK, dated 1.2.2005. According to the guidelines the locally supplied commodes etc were to be certified by the Engineering wing of Rural Development department as technically and financially viable. The petitioner as District Panchayat Officer Kupwara released seven lac rupees in favour of two Self help groups namely Chinar Self help group and Kakrusu Self help group which were being run by certain locals including some ladies for supply of cement commodes none of whom had the services/means or infrastructure to manufacture cement commodes. Under order No. DPO (K) 1590-96 dated 11.3.2005 petitioner deputed aforesaid Self help groups for training in manufacture of sanitary ware to District Panchayat Officer Pulwama, but despite that they were not able to manufacture/supply the cement commodes and the petitioner asked them to supply China ware Commodes in total violation of the guidelines prescribed under the scheme. Simultaneously, an amount of Rs. 61,87,500/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- was also released in favour of aforesaid Self help groups who with petitioner™s connivance purchased the China ware Commods from Khaja Hardware Kupwara at the price of Rs. 145 and Rs. 130/- per piece and P-traps at Rs. 40/- per piece and supplied the same to the department @ Rs. 280/- and Rs. 40/- per piece respectively, and thus defrauded the Government. This was done despite written information of concerned Block Development Officers that none of the aforesaid Self help groups was manufacturing the aforesaid items nor had they any infrastructure for the same. After all this came to light, the concerned police added offence under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act to the case and came to the tentative conclusion that petitioner connived with the aforesaid groups to cheat the State exchequer to the tune of lacs with active assistance of one Mohd Munawar Lone Accountant, who was arrested and the petitioner apprehending has arrest too filed an application for Anticipatory bail before Special Judge Anti Corruption Srinagar on 1st July, the date when the aforesaid Mohd Munawar Lone was arrested, which was dismissed vide order dated 10th of August 2005, with an observation that in view of records the petitioner appeard to be involved in the alleged offences and his custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation. Whereafter he instituted the present petition on aforesaid grounds. 3. Before considering contentions of petitioner™s counsel regarding other aspects of the matter, it would be appropriate to address his argument that regular Police was not competent to register the case and investigate the matter, because of the bar created under Section-3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On face of it the contention appears to be misplaced in view of the very provision itself which is reproduced herein below: 3. Certain offences to be cognizable. - An offence punishable under section 5 of this Act or under section 161 or section 165 or section 165-A or section 167-A of the State Ranbir Penal Code Samvat 1989, shall be deemed to be cognizable offence for the purpose of the code of Criminal Procedure. Samvat 1989 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein: Provided that no Police Officer below the rank of the (x x x) Deputy Superintendent of police shall investigate any such offence without the order of a Magistrate of the first class or make any arrest therefor without a warrant: Provided further that if an officer of the Vigilance Organisation of and above the rank of a Sub Inspector of Police is specially authorized in writing by an officer of the Vigilance Organisation not below the rank of an Assistant Superintendent of Police to investigate such offence, such offence may investigate the offence so specified in the order of authorization. But such officer shall not be competent to arrest any person during such investigation, unless a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of police authorizes such arrest under section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989.� 4. Perusal of the Section reveals that it does not contain any thing prohibiting registration of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act or their investigation by the regular Police or to provide for their registration and investigation only by Vigilance Organisation. All that it lays down is that offences under Section 5 of the Act and the Sections 161, 165, 165-A and Section 161-A of RPC shall be cognizable for purposes of code of Criminal procedure and that no police officer below the rank DSP shall investigate any such offences without Magistrate™s order, which by implication means that DSP™s and officer above them can so investigate the offences even without Magisterial orders. Another part of the provision is reflected by second proviso which prohibits arrest of any person by an officer below the rank of Sub Inspector authorized to conduct investigations, without permission of his higher officer not being below the rank of a DSP. Thus the said provision does not contain anything to support the petitioner™s contention to the contrary which accordingly has got to be brushed aside. 5. In so far as other aspects of the matter are concerned in view of the enormity of transaction that has been un-earthed by the police after investigation, any person involved therein cannot perhaps claim innocence nor can any such claim be heard, once the doubting finger exfacie points towards him. In given circumstances as revealed by the police report above mentioned the petitioner as Controlling Officer of the whole programme under whose signatures the money was being drawn and disbursed cannot easily escape responsibility for whatever wrongful payments have been made in relation to implementation of the scheme, and claim innocence or be innocently heard to make such a claim. In view of his allegedly neck deep involvement therefore his custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for detection of whole fraud and the level of involvement of the other persons constituting the so called Self help groups who are shown have been helping themselves through covert transactions. 6. Law is well settled that anticipatory bail provision is only meant to protect those who genuinely apprehend false involvement in Criminal cases at the hands of influential adversaries or unscrupulous elements. Apparent perpetuators of frauds, fakery and falsehood cannot take refuge thereunder to hide themselves from the systemic scanners and avoid accountability on the pretext of their self proclaimed innocence, particularly in the cases involving official corruption, frauds on public exchequer and violation of the public trust and in that view of the matter the petitioner™s prayer for bail in anticipation of his arrest must fall flat. 7. Before parting, it would be appropriate to observe, that as per police report on the file the matter has more than one dimensions. In addition to indicating commission of fraud in implementation of the scheme under which the aforesaid programs was undertaken, it also suggests existence of the fake self help units as the two involved in the instant case who plunge into looting the exchequer at every available opportunity. In addition to indicating commission of fraud in implementation of the scheme under which the aforesaid programs was undertaken, it also suggests existence of the fake self help units as the two involved in the instant case who plunge into looting the exchequer at every available opportunity. This phenomenon may not be strictly localized only, but can be existent elsewhere also, and requires to be looked into a comparatively broader level for being investigated more effectively. For that purpose it would be advisable that the matter is entrusted to the State Vigilance Organisation for being looked into in its fullness. Accordingly, while dismissing the petition in hand, it is directed that the case be transferred to State Vigilance Organization for thorough investigation. Matter stands accordingly disposed of.