A. N. GUPTA, J. A British national Mr. Gordon Karr came to dwell in India. Till 1995, he was on an Indian Visa. There after he settled down in village Jahan-girabad, P. S. Masauli, District Barabanki. He embraced Islam and changed his name as Mohd. Usuf Karr. He married one Mus lim lady Smt Zeenat. It is said that Maulana Sajjad Nomani converted him to Islamic religion and got him married to Smt. Zeenat, Raja Jamal Rasool Khan and his mother Smt. Zubeda Khatoon were landlords of old Riyasat of Jahangirabad and owned a large chunk of land. Some of their land was declared surplus under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Now Smt. Zubeda Khatoon is dead. Sri Ram Autar Yadav was manager of Raja Jamal Rasool Khan. All of them were interested in saving the land from ceiling operations. With that end in view, Smt. Zubeda Khatoon had executed a sale deed dated 2-1-1976 in respect of plot Nos. 23,24 and 25 to Ram Autar Yadav. Subsequently, Mohd. Usuf Karr alias Gordon Karr pur chased plots No. 22, 23, 24 and 25 from Smt. Zubeda Khatoon for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- which he paid and at the time of striking bargain Raja Jamal Rasool Khan and Ram Autar Yadav were prestnt. Instead of executing a sale deed two gift deeds sometimes in the year 1991, were executed in favour of Smt. Zeenat and her mother. Since the land which had been declared as surplus in the ceiling opera tions, was transferred to Smt. Zeenat and her mother (in fact Mohd. Yusuf Karr alias Gordon Karr) it gave rise to some com plications. 2. The other part of the story is that Maulana Sajjad Nomani was very close to Mohd. Yusuf Karr and his family members, therefore, he not only persuaded Mr. Gor don Karr to embrace Islam but also got him married with a Muslim lady Smt. Zeenat, Maulana Sajjad Nomani used to claim himself as a religious leader. In the courseof time Mohd. Usuf Karr learnt that Maulana was not religious as he used to profess. He collected details about illegal collection of huge money by Maulana in the name of religion. Mohd. Usuf Karr-had made a complaint against Maulana to Is lamic Marqaz. In the courseof time Mohd. Usuf Karr learnt that Maulana was not religious as he used to profess. He collected details about illegal collection of huge money by Maulana in the name of religion. Mohd. Usuf Karr-had made a complaint against Maulana to Is lamic Marqaz. He was also prepared to go personally to Islamic Marqaz to expose the misdeeds of the Maulana. This venture on the part of the deceased invited threats by one Junoon the nephew of Maulana Sajjad Nomani. 3. During the night of 19/20-8-1993 Mr. Gordon Karr alias Mohd. Usuf Karr was found murdered inside his house. The FIR regarding this incident was lodged the next day by Bal Govind Chaukidar of the deceased. In the FIR it was mentioned that during the night at about 1. 30 a. m. some people came to the house of the deceased and started beating the deceased and his maid-servant Rasoolan. On- an alarm being raised those persons went away with an attach. In the incident the deceased and Rasoolan were also injured. On the basis of this FIR a case crime No. 218 of 1993 was registered. 4. Another FIR was lodged on 2-9-1993, being Crime Case No. 224 of 1993 under Section 420, IPC, by Smt. Zeenat wife of the deceased against Raja Jamal Rasool Khan, his mother Smt. Zubeda Khatoon and their manager Ram Autar Yadav regarding fraudulent transaction in which the applicant was also named in the FIR for receiving a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of cheating for gifting those plots which had been declared surplus under the ceiling operations. 5. The State Government ordered in vestigation of both the cases by C. B. , C. I. D. The C. B. C. I. D. filed three charge-sheets in Crime Case No. 218 of 1993 relating to murder of Mr. Gordon Karr alias Mohd. Usuf Karr under Sections 396/412/120-B/504/506, IPC. One charge-sheet was filed against Ram Chandra Yadav and Ramesh Yadav. The second charge-sheet was filed against Raja Jamal Rasool Khan and Ram Avtar and the third was filed against Kallu. These charge-sheets were filed between November, 1993 to July, 1994. After committal proceedings they were converted into Sessions Trial Nos. 109/94, 271/94 and 270/94 respectively. The said sessions trials are still pending. The second charge-sheet was filed against Raja Jamal Rasool Khan and Ram Avtar and the third was filed against Kallu. These charge-sheets were filed between November, 1993 to July, 1994. After committal proceedings they were converted into Sessions Trial Nos. 109/94, 271/94 and 270/94 respectively. The said sessions trials are still pending. So far as Crime No. 224/93 under Section 420, IPC is concerned, C. B. CID filed two charge-sheets on 24-6-1994 and 12-7-1994 respectively. The first charge-sheets dated 24-6-1994 was filed against Raja Jamal Rasool Khan and Ram Avtar and the second charge-sheet dated 12-7-1994 was filed against Smt. Zubeda Khatoon. After committal proceedings they were num bered as Sessions Trial No. 272/94 and Sessions Trial No. 17/95. These two ses sions trial are also pending. 6. The CID after investigation also submitted charge-sheet under Sections 396/412/120-B/504/506, IPC, against Maulana Sajjad Nomani, Raja Jamal Rasool Khan, Ram Asrey Yadav and Junoon. The case on the basis of this charge-sheet has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions. In the meantime the State Government by means of its order dated 6th October, 1994 directed the CID to reinvestigate the case and trans ferred investigation from one region of the CID to another. The investigating officer of the CID applied before the learned Magistrate for permission to re- inves tigate the case but the learned Magistrate rejected the application saying that he should approach the Sessions Court as many as five sessions trials were already pending there. Therefore, the investigat ing officer moved an application before the Court of Sessions for permission to conduct re-investigation in the matter under Section 173 (8), Cr. PC. In the ap plication it was specifically mentioned that" the State Government had ordered rein-vestigation of the case by means of letter dated 6-10-1994 and it was prayed specifi cally in the application that the CID be permitted to conduct re-investigation of the case. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of state it has been admitted that the State Government had ordered re-inves tigation. Learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki by means of impugned order dated 23-1-1995. permitted the CID to conduct re-investigation of the case against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others. Ram Chandra Yadav has chal lenged order dated 23-1-1995 passed by Sessions Judge permitting re-investiga tion of the case by filing a petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. being Criminal Misc. Caseno. 72 of 1995. permitted the CID to conduct re-investigation of the case against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others. Ram Chandra Yadav has chal lenged order dated 23-1-1995 passed by Sessions Judge permitting re-investiga tion of the case by filing a petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. being Criminal Misc. Caseno. 72 of 1995. 7. Raja Jamal Rasool Khan and Ram Autar Yadav had moved an application for discharge in the said Five Sessions Trials contending that there was no evidence against them for framing of charge and in any case these five Sessions Trials should not be proceeded with further and no order of framing of charge be passed till the investigation is completed against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and Police report under Section 173, Cr. PC. is filed. I learned Additional Sessions Judge who was trying these Sessions Trials, by means of his impugned order dated 9-7-1997 rejected their application and ordered that the charges be framed against other ac cused also and fixed a date for framing of charge. Against this order Ram Autar Yadav has preferred Criminal Revision No. 170 of 1997. In the petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. an interim order dated 7-3-1995 was parsed directing that the in vestigating officer will not submit sup plementary charge-shee in the wake of the impugned order passed by the State Government ordering re-investigation. The said impugned order is still operative. That is how, these two cases have come up before me. 8. So far as Criminal Misc. Case No. 72 of 1995 under Section 482, Cr. PC. for quashing of the State Governments order dated 6-10-1994 directing re-investigation of the case against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others is concerned, it is at once clear that this order of the State Government not only without jurisdiction but without any justification as well. It has been alleged by Ram Chandra Yadav petitioner that order dated 6-10-1994 was passed by the State Government in order to protect, help and expunging the name of Maulana from the charge-sheet due to political pressure of. some Muslim religious leaders. These allegations cannot be brushed aside because they cannot be said to be without substance. The State Government has assigned no reason as to why and on the basis of what material it was ordering re-investigation of the case. Under Section 173 (8), Cr. PC. further in vestigation can be ordered. some Muslim religious leaders. These allegations cannot be brushed aside because they cannot be said to be without substance. The State Government has assigned no reason as to why and on the basis of what material it was ordering re-investigation of the case. Under Section 173 (8), Cr. PC. further in vestigation can be ordered. In fact, the CID has already submitted charge-sheet against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others. 9. Learned Government Advocate during the course of arguments stated that during investigation a letter said to have been written by the deceased, fell upon the hands of the investigating officer in which he had apprehended danger to his life from Maulana Sajjad Nomani and Raja Rasool Khan. Since the deceased was trying to expose Maulana in the Marqa V. Maulana must be having a serious grouse against the deceased because his exposure would seriously undermine his position in the society and the income and funds which he was getting by virtue of his al leged religious activities would stop flow ing. In a very recent judgment Honble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chandra Sekhar, etc. v. The State of Kerala and others, 1998 (37) ACC 136, has held that the State Government has no power to order re- investigation or fresh investiga tion. In fact, if this power of ordering re-in vestigation is given to the State Govern ment, in the state of affairs presently exist ing in the country, most of the heinous crimes may go unpunished. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed as follows: "from a plain reading of the above section it is evidence that even after submission of Police report under sub-section (2) on comple tion of investigation, the police has a right of further investigation, under sub-section (8) but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation. further investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or re- investigation to be started abinitio wiping out the earlier investiga tion altogether. " 10. In view of this the petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. being Crl. Misc. Case No. 72 of 1995 is allowed. The order of State Government dated 6-10-1994 direct ing re-investigation of the case of hereby quashed. " 10. In view of this the petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. being Crl. Misc. Case No. 72 of 1995 is allowed. The order of State Government dated 6-10-1994 direct ing re-investigation of the case of hereby quashed. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter further and commit the case to the Sessions at the earliest against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others against whom charge-sheet in question has been filed. Interim order dated 7-3-1995 is hereby vacated. It is made clear that vacation of said order does not mean that the investigating officer shall be entitled to submit a supplemen tary charge-sheet in pursuance of State Governments order dated 6-10-1994. 11. So far as Criminal Revision No. 170 of 1997 is concerned, learned counsel for the revisionist stated that at this stage they do not challenge the order or 1st Addi tional Sessions Judge, Barabanki dated 9-7- 1997 so far as it directs framing of charge against the accused. Now, the question is as to whether five Sessions Trials, namely, S. T. Nos. 109/94, 271/94, 270/94, 272/94 and 17/95 under Sections 396/412/120-B/504/506 and 420, IPC against Ram Chandra Yadav, Ramesh, Raja Jamal Rasool Khan, Ram Autar and Kallu, should be held back till a case against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others on the basis of charge-sheet submitted against them also conies up before the Court of Sessions. From the prosecution case as narrated above, it is clear that Mr. Gordon Karr alias Mohd. Usuf Karr had two sets of enemies as would appear from the letter written by the deceased which has been recovered during investigation. One set of persons consisted of Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others and the other set con sisted of Raja Jamal Rasool Khan and others. Both the groups had enmity against the deceased and, therefore, either the group belonging to Maulana committed the murder of the deceased or the group belonging to Raja Jamal Rasool Khan committed murder or both the groups might have committed the murder or none of these two groups committed the said murder. During the trial, the trial court will have to come to a conclusion as to whether the murder of deceased was com mitted by none of these two groups, by either of the two groups or by both these two groups. During the trial, the trial court will have to come to a conclusion as to whether the murder of deceased was com mitted by none of these two groups, by either of the two groups or by both these two groups. Whether the evidence in all the sessions trials is recorded together or separately, the trial court has to Judge the case and reach a conclusion on the basis of the entire evidence that might be led in the five sessions trials and the sessions trial relating to Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is necessary that all the five pending sessions trials including the sessions trial which may be numbered after the case against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others is committed, are decided by the trial court after the entire evidence is recorded. 12. It is, therefore, directed that the judgments in the pending five sessions trials and the sessions trial which may be numbered after the case against Maulana Sajjad Nomani and others is committed, shall be delivered simultaneously. Criminal Revision No. 170 of 1997 is dis posed off accordingly. It is also made clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by any obser vations made in this order and shall be free to draw its own conclusions in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. .