VAMAN RAO, J. ( 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. 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 complainant himself was the investigating officer would depend upon whether prejudice was caused to the accused on this score and that it is not a matter of law that in every case, the proceedings, should have to be set aside wherever the complainant happened to be the investigating officer. ( 7 ) IT may be mentioned that as stated in the petition itself and as stated in the counter filed on behalf of the respondent, the Inspector, Sri K. Sarveswara Rao conducted the investigation, only till March, 1996 and thereafter he was transferred and one C. Rama Rao continued the investigation. After completion of investigation the Government was approached for sanctioning the prosecution which was accorded under GO Ms. No. 403 Revenue (CT-I) Department and thereafter a charge sheet was filed on 5-8-2000 before the Special Judge for ACB and SPE cases, Visakhapatnam. ( 8 ) IT is true that where the complainant himself happens to be the Investigating Officer, the course of investigation is likely to be affected adversely to the accused for the reason that the complainant is likely to view the material that is unearthed during the investigation with a coloured vision and is likely to construe it consistently with the first information given by him. ( 9 ) THE Surpeme Court in Bhagawan Singh s case, (1996 Cri LJ 7 (3) cited supra) referred to above has made the following observations (para 5)"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 ? ( 10 ) IN the case of Xavier v. State of Kerala, 1996 Cri LJ 3182, it was held by the Kerala High Court that the complainant being a police officer cannot be an investigating officer and it has been observed that it is an incurable infirmity. Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Kumar Singh v. State of Rajathan, (1994) 2 Crimes 277 also expressed its opinion that the complainant cannot be the investigating officer. Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Kumar Singh v. State of Rajathan, (1994) 2 Crimes 277 also expressed its opinion that the complainant cannot be the investigating officer. ( 11 ) THE question is whether the Supreme Court in Bhagawan Singh s case (1976 Cri LJ 713) (cited supra) has laid down as a matter of law that in every case where the complainant is the investigating officer, the proceedings are vitiated and have to be quashed or the observation of the Supreme Court quoted above are based on the facts of that case indicating a broad principle that where the complainant is the investigating officer, it is likely to prejudice the accused. ( 12 ) IT may be pointed that in the case, before the Supreme Court the Head Constable who investigated into the case on an allegation that the accused attempted to give a bribe to a public servant was the very person to whom the accused is said to have attempted to give bribe and who gave the complaint. Thus, it is significant to note that the complainant who investigated in that case was not only a formal complainant but was an eye witness. ( 13 ) IN fact, the question whether the accused attempted to bribe the complainant i. e. the investigating officer was central to the matter under investigation. The evidence of the complainant in that case would assume enormous signficance and the prosecution case would almost entirely hinge on the evidence of the said complainant who himself investigated into the case. Such a witness can be said to have a personal stake in the matter as question of his credibility and truthfulness is involved. ( 14 ) IN the judgment rendered by me, noted above, I expressed my doubt whether the Supreme Court in Bhagawan Singh s case (1976 Cri LJ 713) referred to above has laid down as a matter of law that in every case where the complainant is the investigating officer, the resultant proceedings have to be quashed. It is pertinent to re-call my following observations in that case :"there is another aspect which needs to be mentioned. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court (1st cited supra) would disclose that the matter came up before the Supreme Court in appeal after the trial. It is pertinent to re-call my following observations in that case :"there is another aspect which needs to be mentioned. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court (1st cited supra) would disclose that the matter came up before the Supreme Court in appeal after the trial. It could be argued that the observations of the Supreme Court do not lay down as a matter of law that in every case where the person shown as the complainant is the investigating officer, the trial must be deemed to have been vitiated and a nullity. " ( 15 ) I am refrained from expressing my opinion whether the Supreme Court in Bhagavan Singh s case (1976 Cri LJ 713) has laid down as a matter of law that in every case where the complainant is the investigating officer irrespective of the facts, the prosecution and the resultant of the trial are vitiated as it was not considered necessary in that case before me. In that case, Cri. P. No. 1474 of 2000, the proceedings of the prosecution were challenged at the earliest stage of investigation. I directed to quash the proceedings subsequent to the recording of the first information report stating that there was no point in allowing the investigation to continue with this infirmity and that if it resulted in filing of the charge-sheet, to let the trial to proceed and then at the end of trial, to consider as to whether the fact of the complainant being the investigating officer had adversely affected the credibility of the prosecution case. ( 16 ) BUT, in this case, as on the date when the matter came up for hearing, charge-sheet was already filed by the investigating agency. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain whether the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above, lays down as a matter of law that the proceedings in every case in which the complainant is the investigating officer irrespective of the facts of the case have to be quashed. I may respectfully mention that there are two factors which have to be taken note of. Firstly, the matter went to the Supreme Court in appeal after trial and in the context of appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court posed the question how could the complainant himself be the investigator . I may respectfully mention that there are two factors which have to be taken note of. Firstly, the matter went to the Supreme Court in appeal after trial and in the context of appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court posed the question how could the complainant himself be the investigator . In that context, the Supreme Court observed 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? . ( 17 ) IT is respectfully stated that this observation cannot be construed as the Supreme Court having laid down as a matter of law that in every case, where the complainant is the investigating officer, the proceedings have to be quashed irrespective of the facts of the case. It may be pointed out that this infirmity was treated by the Supreme Court as a factor affecting the credibility of the prosecution case, which is obvious from the observation of the Supreme Court this is the infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case . ( 18 ) IN the case on hand, the first information report recorded by the complainant Sri K. Sarveswara Rao was not based on his personal knowledge and it is a report regarding possession of various assets by the accused, most of which are based on documents evidencing acquisition of assets by the accused or his alleged close relatives. Further, the investigation was not concluded by the complainant and another investigating officer took over after the former was transferred and the investigation was continued further for a long time and after the conclusion of the investigation, the accused was given notice to explain the allegations against him as to possession of disproportionate assets and the accused had submitted his explanation. These two circumstances that subsequent investigation was taken up by another inspector and the accused was given an opportunity to explain cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the fact of complainant being the investigating officer at the initial stages had resulted in prejudice the accused had an opportunity in his explanation to point out how the investigation resulted in prejudice for the reason that the complainant himself was the investigating officer. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the fact of complainant being the investigating officer at the initial stages had resulted in prejudice the accused had an opportunity in his explanation to point out how the investigation resulted in prejudice for the reason that the complainant himself was the investigating officer. ( 19 ) THESE circumstances in the case are significant and in the back ground of these facts, it cannot be said that the mere fact of the complainant being the investigating officer for some time would justify quashing of the proceedings. This, however, does not preclude the accused from bringing out during the trial that this fact has resulted in prejudice to the interests of the petitioner and affected the credibility of prosecution case. It is for the trial Court to take this factor into account while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution. ( 20 ) IN view of the above, this does not appear to be a fit case where proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. and accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.