Judgment :- Om Prakash, CJ. The petitioner (appellant herein) filed the original petition with the prayer that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to hand over the investigation of the offence of murder of his daughter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to constitute a special team of competent and efficient police officers in the Crime Branch Wing of the Police Force in the State for conducting investigation into the murder. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his daughter was kidnapped by the neighbours and ultimately she was done to death in Jammu. It is submitted that the Jammu Police has not taken adequate interest in the matter and no progress has been made in the investigation. Counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that it is for this purpose it was prayed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to constitute a special team of competent officers to investigate into the matter and then have the trial within the State of Kerala only. 3. By the impugned judgment dated 9th January, 1998, the learned single judge dismissing the original petition observed as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Government Pleader, I am satisfied that a case has been made out to grant the aforesaid prayer. Learned Government Pleader on instructions, submits that'Udhampur' police has in fact registered a crime and the matter is under investigation. That apart, since the crime has been committed outside the State of Kerala, respondents 1 to 5 will have practically no role to play in the investigation." It is submitted by counsel for the appellant before us that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not supported by law. 4. In Purushottamdas v. State of West Bengal AIR 1961 SC 1589 the Supreme Court enunciated that the desirability of the trial, together, of an offence of criminal conspiracy and of all the overt acts committed in pursuance of it, is obvious. Relying on the aforesaid authority, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the conspiracy, which culminated into the gruesome murder was hatched in Kerala, it would be more convenient to the police of Kerala to collect the important evidence of murder and that in the circumstances of the case the Jammu police would have no interest in the matter. Relying on the aforesaid authority, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the conspiracy, which culminated into the gruesome murder was hatched in Kerala, it would be more convenient to the police of Kerala to collect the important evidence of murder and that in the circumstances of the case the Jammu police would have no interest in the matter. It is submitted that the entire evidence is available in Kerala and since the conspiracy was hatched in Kerala, it would be more expedient if the investigation into the offence of murder is also made by the Kerala police, who has already undertaken the investigation into the offence of conspiracy. 5. We find force in the submission of counsel for the appellant, which is fully fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Purushottamdas (suspra). We are, therefore, of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not supported by law. 6. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of January 9, 1998, is set aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to conclude the investigation into the offence of conspiracy as expeditiously as possible and if the conspiracy is found to have been hatched in Kerala, then they would cause the investigation into the offence of murder to be made by the Kerala Police.