1. The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Arasappa-complainant was working as SDA in the office of Tahsildar at Sindhanoor. There were allegations against him. Petitioner No.1 was the Tahsildar at Sindhanoor for the period in question. The petitioner No.2 was working as FDA in the office of the Tahsildar, Sindhanoor in Establishment Branch. On the report of petitioner No.1, the complainant was deputed to work in Nada kacheri at Jewalagera. The complainant found the posting at Jewalagera is inconvenient. The deputation could have been cancelled only on the further report of the Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner.

2. The complainant in order to seek cancellation of deputation and also for payment of Festival Advance approached Petitioner No.1 at his residence on 09.10.2007. Petitioner No.1 tells the complainant to meet Petitioner No.2. When the complainant meets petitioner No.2, he tells that complainant should pay Rs.10,000/-as illegal gratification to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.500/-for him. The complainant meets petitioner No.1 on 11.10.07. In the discussion, petitioner No.1 agreed to do favour on payment of Rs.5000 to him and Rs.500 to petitioner No.2. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount and gave a complaint to the Lokayuktha police on 15.10.2007.

3. The Lokayuktha police registered a case, secured CW2 and CW3 and panch witnesses for the trap. The IO conducted colour test to demonstrate the effect of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution to shoe that when phenolphthalein powder contacts solution, it turns into pink colour. The currency notes are smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant was asked to go and meet petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 and to pay the bribe amount on demand. CW2 was sent as shadow witness to observe the transaction as independent witness.

4. The complainant and CW2 went to chambers of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 asked about the identity of CW2. The complainant says that he is a public. Petitioner No.1 asks CW1 to go out. CW2 comes out and stands at the corner of the door and observed the transaction. The petitioner No.1 demanded the bribe amount. The complainant gave the bribe amount. The petitioner No.1 received the same and put it in a draw. The complainant came out from the chambers of petitioner No.1. He and CW2 go and meet petitioner No.2. On his demand, Rs.500 is paid. The complainant after successful trap, gave a signal to the I.O. The IO along with CW3 and others come to the scene, recovered the bribe at the instance of Petitioners 1 and 2 and they were made to dip their hands into Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour.

5. The I.O. after completion of the investigation has sent investigation papers, to the Government for sanction to prosecute Petitioner No.1 and to the Deputy Commissioner-competent authority for seeking sanction to prosecute petitioner No.2. Along with the final report, the IO has not filed sanction order to prosecute petitioner No.1. But the sanction order of prosecuting petitioner No.2 is filed.

6. The Special Judge at the request of the Public Prosecutor, in anticipation of grant of sanction for petitioner No.1, issued summons to petitioner No.1. However, on the application of the Public Prosecutor, the summons issued to petitioner No.1 has been withdrawn. There is no sanction order filed for prosecuting Petitioner No1. till now. The petitioners aggrieved by the final report, have filed the petition for quashing the proceedings.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has produced the order of the Government rejecting the sanction for prosecuting petitioner No.1 and order dated 5.9.2009 which is at Annexure “L”. There was a renewal request by the I.O for reconsideration of the material for grant of sanction. The said request has been rejected by order dated 23.6.2011 giving reasons vide Annexure H. The following reasons have been assigned for rejecting the sanction for