IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3156 OF 2010. Date:09.04.2010 Between:- V.Jayakar Babu ..Petitioner/A-2 And The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents/Complainant and defacto complainant ORDER:- The petitioner is working as Attender or Record Assistant in Office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. He is shown as A-2 in R.C.No.06(A)/09 of Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam. 2. It is alleged that A-1, who is Superintendent in that office, made A-2 to telephone to the defacto complainant/second respondent and inform him about their office receiving a petition about earning illegal income; and asking the second respondent to meet A-1 in this case. It is further alleged that when the second respondent along with another met A-1, he demanded Rs.15,000/- for refraining booking a case and making raids, and stated that out of the said amount, some part of the same should go to the Income Tax Officer and another part would go to himself. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that except telephoning to the defacto complainant at the instance of A-1, as he happened to be a co-villager of the village in which the defacto complainant resides, he has no other participation in this case. 4. A-2 was already arrested by the investigating agency and it is stated that he obtained bail also. In the remand report, it is stated by the investigating agency that the petitioner/A-2 directly working under A-1, who is Office Superintendent, as Attender in the Department, facilitated and acted on behalf of A-1 to take bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant and that he also assisted A-1 to tamper the incriminating evidence in this case. Investigation of the case is still pending. Further complicity of A-2 in this case is yet to be unearthed. All these aspects will come to light only after collection of entire evidence by the investigating agency is completed and when the investigating agency would file complaint before the special Court. It is not desirable to interfere with investigation at its threshold. I do not find any merits in this petition. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 9th April 2010 AMD