H.K.Sema, J. - (1.)Heard the learned Counsel for the State.
(2.)Despite the notice none appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
(3.)The factual matrix may be briefly recited. The Respondent was working as Upper Division Clerk-cum-Storekeeper in the office of the District Education Officer. He was charged under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After the investigation was completed a charge-sheet was submitted on which cognizance was taken and charge was framed against the Respondent on 18.6.1991. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence. It is at that stage the Respondent moved an application for discharge on the ground that the investigation was not done by a competent police officer as per the proviso of Section 5A (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The learned Special Judge after considering the application rejected the said application on the ground that no prejudice has been caused to the Respondent. It was also noticed that the case was directed to be investigated by the Assistant Inspector General. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court. By the impugned order the High Court has quashed the investigation and the charge solely on the ground that the investigation has not been carried on by a competent officer as contemplated under Section 5A (1) (d) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh by special leave.