JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order of learned Special Judge' CBI Cases, Jodhpur dated 5.8.1999 by which he accepted the final report submitted by Central Bureau of Investigation and refused to order further investigation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for C.B.I. and the learned counsel for the complainant. 3. Briefly stated, petitioner is a medical practitioner and runs a clinic at Bikaner. A Nursing Home, in which his clinic is running was constructed in the year 1988-89. A letter was written by the Assistant Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department Jodhpur on 11.12.1996 that he would be visiting the Nursing Home on 24.12.1996. The said inspection took place alongwith Junior Engineer Shyam Lal Asnani. A valuation report was received. On 23.3.1997 Shri Asnani came to his clinic at about 1.00 PM. and informed that he can get the valuation report made at lesser amount. The matter was reported to C.B.I. on 25.3.1997 with the allegation that valuation report was made at very higher amount and Shri Asnani stated to complainant Anil Kumar that he will get it reduced for which he will take a bribe of Rs. 10,000/-. On the basis of this first information report a trap was arranged which was not successful in the sense that the talk between Dr. Anil Kumar and accused respondent Shyam Lal which was recorded in tape reveals that no bribery was demanded nor the amount paid was a bribery the matter was further investigated by C.B.I. and it was found that no work was pending with Shyam Lal Asnani in relation to valuation of the clinic of Dr. Anil Kumar nor Shyam Lal had received the money as illegal gratification for the work of valuation which he had earlier done. Instead it was found that Dr. Anil Kumar had himself handed over money to Asnani saying that he had very little time and Shri Asnani may get a valuer engaged for the purpose of valuation of his clinic and a counsel engaged and the amount be paid to them. The C.B.I. after investigation submitted final report. 4. Dr. Anil Kumar filed a protest petition before learned Special Judge and requested for further investigation which was refused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner first submitted that this Court could order further investigation. The C.B.I. after investigation submitted final report. 4. Dr. Anil Kumar filed a protest petition before learned Special Judge and requested for further investigation which was refused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner first submitted that this Court could order further investigation. Reliance has been placed on M/s. Birfa Tyres & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1998 Cr.L.J. Page 4401 , in which it was held that though absence of prior sanction bars the Court from taking cognizance but it does not bar investigation. There is no bar to order further investigation. But why it should be done ? He cited Jain Hawala Case reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 12 (SC), Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. and has canvassed that if the conduct of a person amounts to an offence it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. All said and done his argument is that the case may be further investigated notwithstanding the talks recorded in cassette. 6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I. carried me through the entire investigation papers and submitted that no work of the petitioner was pending with accused Shyam Lal Asnani, that cassette which recorded the voice of Dr. Anil Kumar as well as Shyam Lal Asnani did not disclose that the amount was given as a bribery. The case of the accused Asnani at the time of trap itself was that Dr. Anil Kumar approached him and informed that the valuation of his Nursing Home as well as residential house in the name of his wife was constructed in the year 1988-89 and investment was made in those years but the valuation was made wrong and that the petitioner wanted to prefer an appeal against the demand raised by the Income Tax Officer, Bikaner. For preparing the valuation report based on the actual investment made during 1988-89 through approved Income Tax Valuer and also for the comments of approved valuer and counsel to file the appeal, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given for making payment to them. For preparing the valuation report based on the actual investment made during 1988-89 through approved Income Tax Valuer and also for the comments of approved valuer and counsel to file the appeal, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given for making payment to them. Then accused Shyam Lal informed that neither he nor S.N. Meena has any concern with that amount and that receipt issued by the registered valuer as well as counsel and typing institute, mailing etc. will be sent to him. Dr. Anil Kumar had requested him that he has to go to Bikaner immediately for Nursing Home work, he requested to get the work completed. The recorded cassette also revealed that there was no such demand of bribery by Shyam Lal Asnani and that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be given to registered valuer and to the counsel and as it was for the purpose of typing expenditure, mailing etc., Shyam Lal had told that receipts would be sent to Dr. Anil Kumar. 7. In view of this investigation and the fact that no work was pending with Shyam Lal Asnani, the C.B.I. submitted final report. I think the learned Special Judge has not committed any illegality in refusing to order to reinvestigate the matter. He was right in accepting the final report. 8. Consequently, the petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed.No force in petition-Rejected. *******