JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Order Dated 16-08-2001 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 28 of 1993 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance and drop the proceedings of the said case is assailed in this CRMC. 2. The Petitioner was serving as the Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack. On the basis of an FIR filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) alleging misappropriation of huge amount from Government exchequer and commission of other financial irregularities and overt-acts by the Petitioner, Vig. G.R. Case No. 28 of 1988 was registered. The said case was subsequently registered as the aforesaid T.R. Case in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. 3. The Learned Court below after perusing the documents produced before it by the prosecution, duly applying its mind and on being prima facie satisfied that the offence as alleged was made out, took cognizance thereof u/s 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 5(2) of that Act. While matter stood thus, two applications were filed by the Petitioner, one for quashing the order of cognizance and the other for returning to him the cash seized by the prosecution which belonged to his mother. Though the petition for quashing of cognizance was pending, inadvertently in the order-sheets of the case it was reflected that the said petition had been dismissed as not pressed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 334 of 1994. this Court disposed of the said revision on 18-08-1994 directing the Court below to consider the petition once again. In consonance with the said direction the Court below took up the petition for quashing of cognizance once again. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the State by a well-discussed and elaborate order the Court below held that the prayer to recall the order taking cognizance as well as the prayer to drop the proceedings of the T.R. Case had no merit and accordingly rejected the same. The said order is assailed in this CRMC. 4. Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity, inasmuch it did not appreciate the arguments advanced. The said order is assailed in this CRMC. 4. Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity, inasmuch it did not appreciate the arguments advanced. It is submitted that the procedure for filing of FIR after conducting raid was not legal and that aspect was not kept in mind of the Learned Court below. Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department relying on the decision reported in P. Sirajuddin, etc. Vs. State of Madras, etc., submitted that before an FIR is filed against a high-ranking public servant alleging serious misdemeanor, a preliminary inquiry is necessary to be conducted. According to him in the case at hand, the house search was conducted by the Vigilance officers so as to be prima facie satisfied with regard to the allegations prior to lodging of FIR and that did not form part of the investigation. Hence the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that due procedure was not followed cannot be accepted. 5. After going through the decision cited above and considering the submissions made this Court finds that there is some force in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department. The allegation that the house search was conducted on the strength of a search warrant issued by Learned CJM, Cuttack and Learned CJM without due application of mind had endorsed the said search warrant was repudiated by the Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department. He submitted that only after due application of mind such warrant had been issued and no irregularity worth the name had been committed. Several other allegations have also been made with regard to nature of investigation, but then it appears that exercising power conferred under the First Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), the State Government had authorized the Inspectors of Police attached to P & S Department to investigate into any offence punishable u/s 5 of the said Act other than an offence referred to any Clause (3) of Section 5( 1) thereof or any offence punishable under Sections 161, 165 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code. The order of the Home Department of Government of Orissa dated 13th October, 1977 also reveals that the Inspectors of Police attached to P. & S. (Vigilance) Department are also authorized to investigate into any offence punishable under Clause (2) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act (1947) in addition to the power given under the Home Department Order Dated 29th July, 1970, Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department relying on those orders forcefully submitted that the said orders are still in force even after the Prevention of Corruption Act has been repealed, as the same was not inconsistent with the aforesaid Act. In support of such contention Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Biswanath Naik v. Presiding Judge, OJC No. 1766 of 1994, wherein it was held that there was little scope for doubt that the Notification issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 continued to remaining force despite repeal of the Act. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the submission raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. Law is well settled that if a Court after going through the materials produced before it by the prosecuting agency is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, it can take cognizance thereof. In the case at hand, as would be apparent from the order of the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), after due application of mind and being prima facie satisfied about commission of the offence alleged, he took cognizance thereof. The impugned order refusing to recall the order taking cognizance and to drop the proceeding of the T.R. Case does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference of this Court. this Court therefore dismisses the CRMC. CRMC dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed