Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to for short 'as the P.C.Act') and it was in the above circumstances, the petitioner preferred complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 7,8 and 9 read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C.Act. According to the learned counsel, though the court below, dissatisfied with the Annexure III vigilance report, directed and forwarded Annexure III report for further investigation, such further investigation was entrusted with the same officer, who furnished the earlier report vide Annexure III, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the second report i.e., Annexure V, the investigating officer has not made any attempt to conduct investigation as ordered by Annexure IV order and the matters, specifically referred to and directed to be investigated, have not been considered and filed Annexure V report reiterating his earlier stand in favour of the first respondent/accused. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the trial court is not justified in accepting Annexure V report and dropping the proceedings upon the complaint preferred by the petitioner. In support of his contention,the learned counsel heavily placed reliance upon the decision reported in State
