( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 6/cr-RJY/95 dated 14-9-1995 on the file of the ACC Police Station, Rajahmundry, which it is now revealed that has led to filing of charge sheet against the petitioner-accused and was taken cognizance as calendar case, on the ground that the complainant in this case was the investigating officer.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to this petition may be stated briefly as follows :the petitioner has been working as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Revision) in the office of the Deputy Commercial Taxes No. II Division, Vijayawada at the relevant time. According to the petitioner, he had an unblemished record and won commendation certificate for his outstanding performance. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Kakinada, Rajamundry Range, Sri K. Sarveswara Rao made a complaint on 14-9-1995 against the petitioner under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the petitioner was in possession of assets either in his name or in the name of his family members or close relatives disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is stated that Sri K. Sarveswara Rao, Inspector of Police himself investigated the case. On 21-9-1995, the said Inspector searched the house of the petitioner at Rajahamundry and made an inventory and seized certain documents. The complainant Inspector of Police also raided the house at Kakinada and made an inventory of property and seized the same. The said Inspector, thus investigated the case from 14-9-1995 to Sept. 1996 till he was transferred and thereafter another Inspector C. Ramarao continued the investigation. It is stated that on 31-7-1997, the Inspector of Police, ACB issued a notice to the petitioner stating that investigation revealed that during the check period from 15-5-1970 to 22-9-1995, he was in possession of the properties worth Rs. 30,15,107. 00 disproportionate to his known sources of income and asked the petitioner to submit the explanation within 15 days. He submitted his explanation on 29-9-1997 denying the allegations of possessing the assets. It is stated that the petitioner is not aware of what happened thereafter. But, he came to know that the ACB is contemplating to file the charge sheet (by the time of hearing arguments, it is stated that charge sheet has already been filed ).

( 4 ) IT is stated on behalf of the petitioner that substantial part of the investigation was done by the Inspector Sri Sarveswara Rao, which resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner as the complainant investigating officer would conduct the investigation on the lines of the fir. It is further stated that the successor investigating officer Sri Rama Rao would necessarily depend on the previous investigation for filing the final report of the investigation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Muvva Chandra Sekhar Rao is that inasmuch as the Inspector of Police, Mr. Sarveswara Rao recorded the first information report and conducted substantial part of investigation , the whole investigation is vitiated and the process of investigation and the charge sheet if any filed as culmination of investigation must be quashed.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 SCC (Cri) 737 : (1996 Cri LJ 713) and a judgment of this Court rendered by me in Crl. P. No. 1474 of 2000 dated 12-6-2000 in the case of Maddu Lakshmana Rao v. The State of A. P. , (2000) 2 LS 325 (Andh Pra) to buttress his contention that where the complainant himself is the investigating officer, the entire investigation and the resultant final report must be deemed to have been vitiated.

( 6 ) SRI Pedda Babu, the learned Stanting Counsel for the respondent-ACB on the other hand contends that the question of quashing of proceedings where the complaina