Judgment :- 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 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 prosecuting petitioner No.1 i) The complainant is man of dubious character and on earlier occasion he had threatened to make a bomb blast at the Deputy Commissioner Office. ii) The complainant had misappropriated the funds. Therefore, as a measure of penalty he was deputed to work at Jawalgera. 8. In the reasons, it is shown that the complainant on earlier occasion had threatened to make a bomb blast at the Deputy Commissioner’s office and he had mis-appropriated the funds and he has been deputed to Jawalgera as a measure of penalty. Therefore, as a measure of penalty he was deputed to work at Jawalgera. 8. In the reasons, it is shown that the complainant on earlier occasion had threatened to make a bomb blast at the Deputy Commissioner’s office and he had mis-appropriated the funds and he has been deputed to Jawalgera as a measure of penalty. The complainant was in the habit of threatening the officials and was indulging in dereliction of duty. In Annexure H, it is further mentioned that the complainant had tape-recorded the conversation with Petitioner No.1 regarding the demand of bribe. The FSL report discloses that the recorded voice and sample voice do not tally. Because of the said reasons, the grant of sanction is rejected. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur has accorded sanction for prosecuting Petitioner No.2. 9. The complainant first approached the Lokayuktha police reporting the demand of illegal gratification by Petitioners 1 and 2. The Lokayuktha police gave tape recorder to the complainant to record the conversation with petitioners 1 and 2 as a substantial basis for registering the complaint. The complainant accordingly recorded the conversation with the petitioner No.2 on 5.10.2007 and petitioner No.1 on 15.10.2007 with the tape recorder given by the Lokayuktha police. The complaint is registered on 15.10.2007. The FSL report discloses that the recorded voice do not tally with the sample voice of petitioner 1 and 2. In the final report, the statements of CW2 and CW3 were recorded. 10. The statement of CW2 is to the effect that he went along with the complainant to the chambers of Petitioner No.1 and he was asked to go out. Therefore, he stood at the corner of the door and observed the transaction. Petitioner No.1 demanded bribe and complainant gave a bribe. Therefore, the complainant and CW2 go and meet petitioner No.2 who demanded bribe and it was given by the complainant in his presence. Later on the complainant gave a signal to the Lokayuktha police. The Lokayuktha police apprehended petitioners 1 and 2 recovered money from their possession. On the basis of the said materials, the Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayuktha strenuously contended that there is prima facie material for demand and acceptance of bribe by petitioner No.2. Therefore, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 11. The Lokayuktha police apprehended petitioners 1 and 2 recovered money from their possession. On the basis of the said materials, the Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayuktha strenuously contended that there is prima facie material for demand and acceptance of bribe by petitioner No.2. Therefore, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 11. The counsel for the petitioners in a memo, produced the order of Government rejecting the request for grant of sanction to prosecute petitioner No.1.The counsel for Lokayuktha submitted that said order is not received by the Lokayuktha police and matter is still pending. 12. Hearing Sri. Bahubali, the counsel for the petitioners with reference to material on record. 13. The material discloses that the complainant first approached Lokayuktha Police on 5.10.2007 and he apprehends that the petitioners 1 and 2 may demand bribe for doing favour to cancel the deputation. The Lokayuktha police in order to get concrete material for registering the case, gave tape recorder to the complainant to record the conversation with petitioners 1 and 2 to create a basis for registering the complaint. In the contest of the above facts, a serious impropriety on the part of the IO is evident, because IO does not register the complaint on 05.10.2007. In fact, the complaint categorically mentions that the complainant apprehend that Petitioners 1 and 2 may demand bribe. Therefore, the IO gave tape recorder for recording conversation. The conduct of IO is highly depreciable. The IO should act as impartial and independent investigating agency. When there is no material to register the complaint on 05.10.2007, the IO should have insisted better material for registering the complaint. He should not have associated himself and assisted the complainant by giving tape recorder to record the conversation. It may be true that every complaint need not be registered blindly. The I.O is entitled to make preliminary enquiry. But however, giving tape recorder to record conversation with regard to demand of bribe does not constitute preliminary enquiry, rather it amounts to collecting the evidence against the petitioners even before the case is registered. This indicates undue interest shown by the IO in the investigation of the case. Therefore, it becomes doubtful to believe the credibility and integrity of the investigation and the final report. In view of the above serious illegalities, the investigation gets vitiated. 14. This indicates undue interest shown by the IO in the investigation of the case. Therefore, it becomes doubtful to believe the credibility and integrity of the investigation and the final report. In view of the above serious illegalities, the investigation gets vitiated. 14. The contention that CW2 and CW3 in their statement have clearly speak about the demand and acceptance of bribe by Petitioners 1 and 2, is untenable. When I.O has shown undue and unwarranted interest in the investigation of the case, the investigation will be vitiated and integrity of the final report becomes doubtful to be believed. The material in the final report cannot be prima facie accepted as credible piece of material for prosecuting Petitioners 1 and 2. 15. It is evident from the order produced along with the memo by Petitioner No.1 that the Government has refused to accord permission to prosecute petitioner No.1. The illegalities that vitiates the case for prosecuting petitioner No.1, equally applies to the case of petitioner No.2 and there cannot be different standards to prosecute petitioner No.2 in the absence of petitioner No.1 because the prosecution case discloses that petitioners 1 and 2 have jointly committed the offence. When the prosecution material against petitioner No.1 is rejected, the same would also enure to the benefit of petitioner No.2. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the investigation and the final report against Petitioner No.2 is vitiated. The final report against petitioner No.1 does not sustain because there was no valid sanction to prosecute him. The sanction to prosecute him is rejected. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed, the proceedings in Special C.C.No.7/2011 against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are stand quashed.