( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 of Cr. PC seeks quashing of the proceedings in FIR 1/acb-VJA/96 registered at police station, ACB, Vijayawada range in which the petitioner is accused of offence under Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.

( 2 ) THE impugned first information report as registered would disclose that the District Inspector, Krishna, ACB, vijayawada range by name Sri N. Prasad on the basis of which the first information report has been registered, has received the information that the accused being a public servant has amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The first information report mentions the lists of certain assets possessed by the accused and also mentions the estimated income of the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE only ground on which the proceedings in the investigation are sought to be quashed is that the said N. Prasad, who is the complainant in the case and on the basis of whose complaint the first information report has been registered, has been appointed as the Investigating Officer in the case. The affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in this Court discloses that several documents, copies of which have been filed, unmistakably indicate that the said Inspector, first respondent herein, has been acting as an Investigating Officer.

( 4 ) IN fact, the learned Standing Counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau, Sri g. Pedda Babu, does not controvert the fact that the first informant is the Investigating officer in the case.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan singh v. State ofrajasthan, 1975 SCC (Crl.) 737, in support of his contention that the complainant cannot act as an Investigating officer in a criminal case against the accused. The following observations appears significant:"we may first refer to a rather disturbing feature of this case. It is indeed such an unusual feature that it is quite surprising that it should have escaped the notice of the trial Court and the High Court. Head constable Ram Singh was the person to whom the offer of bribe was alleged to have been made by the appellant and he was the informant or complainant who lodged the first information report for taking action against the appellant. It is difficult to understand how in these circumstances. Head Constable Ram singh could undertake the investigation of the case. How could the complainant himself be the investigator ?"

( 6 ) TO the same effect, the Kerala High Court in the case of Xavier v. State of kerala, 1998 Crl. LJ 3182, held that the complainant being a police officer cannot be an Investigating Officer and it has been observed that it is an incurable infirmity. Similarly, in the case of Ram kumar Singh v. State ofrajasthan, 1994 (2) crimes 277, the Rajasthan High Court following the judgment of the Supreme court referred to above also came to an opinion that the complainant cannot be the investigator.

( 7 ) FROM this, it is contended that the complainant cannot be permitted to act as an Investigating Officer against the accused. There is some substance in this contention.

( 8 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau however has tried to make two points which according to him constitute distinguishing features of the case before the Supreme court on the basis of facts in that case. It is pointed out that the allegations in that case were that the Investigating officer himself was offered bribe by the accused.

( 9 ) IT is true that in the case before the Supreme Court Bhagwan Singh v. State of rajasthan (supra), the star witness of the prosecution on whose evidence the result of the prosecution case hinges was the investigating Officer. Though, in the case before me, the first informant may not be required to depose anything against the accused on the basis of his personal knowledge inasmuch as he gave the report on the basis of the credible