THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10513 OF 2010 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A1 to A7 in CC.No.139 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palkol. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor-first respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners A1 to A7 are accused of offences under Sections 3 & 4 of AP Gaming Act, 1974 in CC No.139 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palkol. According to the prosecution, on 7.4.2008, as per the instructions of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narasapuram, the Sub Inspector of Police, Palkol Rural P.S conducted raid over the gambling house bearing D.No.4-83-1 belonging to A1 and found accused Nos. 1 to 7 indulging in playing cards. It is stated that the accused were apprehended and the cards and other material found in the scene of offence and also the cash representing betting money and four motor cycles and six cell phones used by the accused were seized under Panchanama. Based on the said mediators report, a case in Cr.No.38 of 2008 was registered and investigated subsequently and charge sheet was also filed against the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the prosecution is vitiated on account of the fact that the complainant himself has investigated the case and filed a charge sheet. In that connection, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan[1] wherein it is held as under: “Investigation by a Head Constable who was himself the person, to whom bribe was alleged to have been offered and who lodged the FIR as informant or complainant. This was an infirmity which was bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.” This Court following the above decision of the Apex Court also held in Gurajala Ramesh and others v. State of A.P,[2] as follows: “In the circumstances, it is manifest, that, illegality was committed by the same Police Officer, who detected, or, found the offence, or, crime, also giving the FIR recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C.1973, and also otherwise investigating into the crime, and finally filing the charge-sheet, and giving evidence as P.W.3.” In the present case also, it is not disputed that the second respondent herein, who was working as SI of Rural P.S, Palkol himself conducted the raid and prepared the Panchanama and based on the contents thereof registered a case in Cr.No.38 of 2008 and investigated into the case and filed the charge sheet also. Thus, the prosecution case entirely depends on the testimony of the second respondent, the SI of Police. When the second respondent himself was the complainant and therefore, figures as an important witness, conducted search, seizure and arrest of the petitioners, he ought not to have investigated into the case in the interest of fair play and to ensure fairness to the investigation. The same person figuring in multiple roles as the complainant and witness and investigator would certainly vitiate the prosecution and is an infirmity which is bound reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case as held by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra. 5. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision and having regard to the fact that the prosecution case is vitiated on account of the infirmity referred to supra, it is considered, it is a fit case for invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings in C.C.No.139 of 2008 against the petitioners as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the said proceedings. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and further proceedings against the petitioners-A1 to A7 in C.C.No.139 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palkol are quashed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J rkk Dated: 09-11-2010 [1] AIR 1976 SC [2] 2003 Cri.L.J 3584