Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Vigilance. No one appears for opposite party no. 3 even after service of notices, although a vakalatnama has been filed on her behalf. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire prosecution and the order taking cognizance dated 5.2.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in , Special Case No. 17 of 2006 pending in the court of the Special Judge, VigilanceII, Patna, arising out of Singeshwar PS. Case No. 0142/99 registered under Sections 420, 161, 120B of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance has been taken under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order taking cognizance as well as the investigation on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not competent and has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act to take cognizance of the offences under Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. it is further submitted that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police, who have investigated the offences, are also not authorized to investigate into any offence in view of Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under Sec. 17 of the Act only a Police Officer of the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Inspector of Police specially authorized is empowered to investigate such offence. 4. Learned counsel for the State in answer to the aforesaid submissions sought to rely upon the provisions of Section 460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which any Magistrate, who is not empowered by law to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or (b) of subSection (1) and Sec. 190 but erroneously in good faith does that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered. 5. The said submission has to be rejected on the ground that the cognizance has been taken under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act under which the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance of offences and thus the provisions of Sec. 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot override the special provisions under the special enactment. It is well settled principle of law that in the special provision of any enactment overrides the general provision. The Prevention of Corruption Act being a special enactment, its provisions will apply in preference to that of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code wherever there is a conflict between the two and thus, no befefit can be taken of said Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In the present matter, Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also makes it clear that an offence under the said enactment can only be investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police or, if generally or specifically empowered by the State Government by an Inspector of Police. In the present matter, the admitted position is that the case has been investigated by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and SubInspector of Police, who are not authorized to investigate the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position both the investigation as well as the order taking cognizance are quashed. However, it will be open to the authorities to get a fresh investigation made into the matter by a competent police officer under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and proceed further in accordance with law. 8. The application is, accordingly, allowed subject to the aforesaid directions and observations.