ORDER : 1. The petitioner-State has assailed order dated 13.09.2021, passed by learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in CNR No.HPMA010008182020, Registration No. 02/2020, whereby the respondent has been discharged for offence punishable under Section 30 (ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 (for short, “the Act”). 2. After investigating FIR No. 02/2017, registered at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short, “SV&ACB”), Mandi dated 20.04.2017, challan was presented against the respondent under Section 30 (ii) of the Act. 3. The learned Special Judge held that cognizance had not been properly taken for want of report of the Authorized Officer under Section 36 of the Act. Accordingly, the proceedings before the learned Special Judge, were held to be bad and the respondent was discharged. 4. Petitioner-State has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the learned Special Judge has misread the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. As per the petitioner, the submission of report by the Authorized Officer under Section 36 of the Act, to the Court, was not a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offences under the Act. The only requirement was the making of the report under the aforesaid provision by the Authorized Officer. In the case in hand, the report of the Authorized Officer was made part of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (for short, “The Code”), therefore, the cognizance was rightly taken. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. It is revealed from the impugned order that the learned Special Judge has considered the provisions of Section 36 of the Act as pari-materia provision contained in Antiquities and Arts Act, 1972 and has thus arrived at the conclusion that the Court was prohibited from taking cognizance except upon a complaint in writing. Learned Special Judge has drawn the inference, from Section 36 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules framed thereunder, that the Court could take cognizance of offence under the Act only on the basis of complaint filed by the Authorized Officer and the police report could not be said to be a substitute for such complaint. 7. Section 36 of the Act reads as under : “36. 7. Section 36 of the Act reads as under : “36. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act against any person unless a report in writing is made by such an officer not below the rank of an Under Secretary as the State Government as it may by a notification, specify: Provided that no such report shall be made against a member of judicial service of State saves with the prior concurrence of the High Court.” 8. The above noted provision speaks of prohibition of cognizance of offences under the Act by any Court unless a “report” in writing is made by the Authorized Officer to be notified by the State Government. The Authorized Officer should not be below the rank of an “Under Secretary”. 9. The question arises whether making of “report” is to be construed as report being made to Court by Authorized Officer as a pre-condition for taking of cognizance. For answer, it is to be understood in what context the term “report” has been used in Section 36 of the Act? Such understanding has to be drawn by taking into consideration the enabling provision as contained in the Code. Section 39 of the Act makes provision of this Special Act in addition and not in derogation to the Code. 10. Section 190 of the Code empowers the Magistrates to take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. 11. The police report is prescribed in Section 173 of the Code. As per sub section (2) of Section 173, immediately on completion of investigation, the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station is mandated to forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report in the form prescribed by the State Government. The power to investigate cognizable and non-cognizable offence vest in the Police Officer as per the procedure prescribed under the Code. Hence, the cognizance upon police report as provided in Clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 190 shall mean report under Section 173(2) of the Code. 12. The power to investigate cognizable and non-cognizable offence vest in the Police Officer as per the procedure prescribed under the Code. Hence, the cognizance upon police report as provided in Clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 190 shall mean report under Section 173(2) of the Code. 12. Chapter XV of the Code provides for complaints to Magistrates and the procedure to be adopted by Magistrates on receipt of complaints. The complaint as prescribed under sub section (a) of sub section (1) of Section 190 has reference to Chapter XV of the Code. As regards, Clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section 190, the Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 191 and 192 of the Code. 13. Thus, under the Code, the report can be filed only by the police under Section 173 of the Code. Any other person can only file a complaint. The designated officer under Section 36 of the Act definitely is not the Police Officer and, as such, he cannot file a report before the Magistrate. 14. Even otherwise, Section 36 of the Act, does not provide for making of a report by the designated Officer to the Court. It only speaks about making of report by the Authorized Officer. Learned Special Judge has noticed Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act, which says that the report shall be made in writing by the competent authority empowered by the State Government under Section 36 of the Act, to the Court to take cognizance of an offence under the Act, in the proforma attached to the Rules. 15. The rule making power has been vested in the State Government by virtue of Section 40 of the Act. Such provision authorizes the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. It is trite that in exercise of power to make rules, the rules cannot be so framed to overside the provisions of the Act itself. Section 36 of the Act itself does not provide for the making of report by the Authorized Officer to the Court. It only provides for making of report by such officer not below the rank of Under Secretary as may be specified by the State Government by a notification. Section 36 of the Act itself does not provide for the making of report by the Authorized Officer to the Court. It only provides for making of report by such officer not below the rank of Under Secretary as may be specified by the State Government by a notification. The plain reading of Section 36 thus clearly provides that the State Government by notification can specify the Authorized Officer, who can make the report, with the caveat that such officer should not be below the rank of Under Secretary. In this view of the matter, Rule 3 of the Rules under the Act, cannot be interpreted to bar the power of the Court to take the cognizance in absence of report being made to it by the Authorized Officer. 16. Viewed from another angle, Section 36-A of the Act provides power to investigate any offence punishable under the Act, however, with the condition that Police Officer should not be below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Exception has also been provided whereby the State Government by general or specific order may authorize a Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector to investigate the offence punishable under the Act. When the power of investigation is with the police, the necessary corollary would be that the police can register the FIR also. The offence punishable under Section 30 (ii) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment upto three years and thus is cognizable. The police on receipt of information regarding cognizable offence is otherwise under legal mandate to register the FIR. 17. Once the police has power to register the case and to investigate the same, it is not understandable as to what will be the use and fate of such investigation, when the report is to be submitted by the Authorized Officer. 18. In view of above discussion, it is held that the cognizance for offence under Section 30 (ii) of the Act cannot be said to be barred on police report, the only mandatory requirement is to have the report of Authorized Officer, which is available in the case in hand. The report of the Authorized Officer admittedly has been made part of the police report and placed before the Court. 19. Resultantly, the criminal revision is allowed. The report of the Authorized Officer admittedly has been made part of the police report and placed before the Court. 19. Resultantly, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 13.09.2021, passed by learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in CNR No. HPMA010008182020, Registration No. 02/2020, is set-aside. Learned Special Judge, Mandi is directed to proceed further with the case in terms of the observations made hereinabove. 20. The criminal revision stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.