Judgment :- Crl.O.P.4623 of 2004 has been filed to quash the final report filed against the petitioner by the respondent which is pending as PRC.No:24 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Mannargudi. 2. Crl.O.P.No: 4653 of 2004 has been filed to transfer the investigation to the second respondent i.e., Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, CBI, Chennai for an independent, impartial investigation of PRC NO.24 of 2003. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first respondent filed a final report bearing No.1 of 2003 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi against the petitioner and two others for alleged offences under sections 302, r/w 109 and 34 and Section 307 r/w.109, 34 of IPC and Section 25, Section 25(1-B) r/w. Sec.4 and G.O.No.36 Home (BOL), dated 14.2.1981 of the Arms Act, on the allegation that A-1 and A-2 attacked one Radhakrishnan and his wife Mrs.Pugalmangai with Velstick and Aruval respectively on 13.1.2002 at about 5.30 p.m., caused injuries to them and Radhakrishnan succumbed to the injuries on 15.1.2002 at 2.10 pm., while he was under treatment at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. According to the petitioner he was implicated belatedly as A-3 due to political enmity on the ground that he provided Aruval to A-2 and instigated him to attack the deceased. The final report dated 17.7.2003 filed by the first respondent has been taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi in PRC.No. 24 of 2003 and issued process to the accused. The wife of deceased filed Crl.O.P.No:4713 of 2002 and Crl.MP.No.2423 of 2003 before this court for a direction to direct the Director General Of Police to appoint an Officer who is having a clean record of service as well as a person who does not belong to Thanjavur or Nagapattinam Districts. In the said petition it has been contended by the wife of the deceased that the respondents 1 to 3 i.e., (1) Inspector of Police of Paravakottai Police Station, (2) Inspector of Police, district Crime Branch, Thiruvarur (3) Deputy superintendent of Police, Mannargudi, had acted in a partisan manner and they have not recorded the statement of the petitioner property and deliberately omitted the name of Gnanasekaran, A-3. After contest this court passed an order directing the Director General of Police to name a Police Officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is not a native of either Thanjavur or Nagapattinam District to further investigate the case with regard to the involvement of the petitioner herein by examining the case diary and examine the persons who participated in the meeting at Kodavasal on 13.1.2002 and whether the petitoner was present at Kodavasal or not at the relevant point of time and based upon the recorded materials file a final report before the Learned Magistrate. 4. The petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No:25835 of 2002 in which he contended that though the occurrence took place on 13.1.2002 a petition was given to implicate the petitioner as accused only on 25.2.2002, the petitioner is now the State Secretary of the Commercial Wing of BJP party for Tamil Nadu and previously he was the District Secretary of AIADMK, besides, he also contested in the last Assembly Election and lost the same by a slender of margin, he is asocial worker and a popular person and he is not likely to abscond and he is prepared to offer sufficient sureties. According to the petitioner he was attending a Meeting on 13.1.2002 in a Kalyana Mandapam at Kudavasal and he was not present in the scene of occurrence. In the said Crl.O.P, this court granted three months further time to complete the investigation and also observed that till then, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. 5. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.966 of 2003 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted 8 weeks time to the appellant (petitioner) to make regular bail and till such time the trial court pass an order on such bail application of the appellant, he shall not be arrested, provided he makes a bail application within the time granted in the said order. 6. According to the petitioner when this Court in Crl.O.P.No:4713 of 2002 directed the Director General of Police to appoint an Officer who was having a clean record of service as well as the officer should not belong to Thanjavur or Nagapattinam Districts, one Mr.Padmanabhan, DSP, CBCID, Trichy, who is not having a good record of service, was appointed as the Investigating Officer. The said Padmanabhan has been inquired by his own Department in connection with an investigation of a case of rape and murder for creating false records. He was charged under Clause 3(b) of the Disciplinary Rules for alleged misconduct viz., dereliction of duty, improper investigation, creating false records and for allowing the accused to escape. It is this officer who has implicated the petitioner as A-3 and fabricated evidence of five persons, which is against the directions of the Supreme Court. Many Police Officers who found out the truth that the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence were transferred to various places. They are one Mr.Sundararajan DSP, CBCID, Madurai and Mr.Vijaya Ramachandran, DSP, CBCID, Madurai. 7. The documentary evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in the form of Minutes book of Special Executive Committee Meeting at Kodavasal on 13.1.2002 between 4.00 pm., and 7.00 pm., would confirm that the petitioner has participated and addressed the Meeting during the time of alleged occurrence. 8. This court by order dated 23.4.2004 with the consent of the learned Public Prosecutor of the High Court and on the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner appointed Mr.T.N.Venkateswaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, to further investigate the case, particularly about the presence of the petitioner at the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence or whether he participated in the meeting at Kodavasal at the time of alleged occurrence. 9. The said T.N.Venkateswaran, DSP, has filed a report before this court along with statements of witnesses examined before him. According to him the witnesses, (1) Pugalmangai, wife of the deceased, (2) S.Maragatham, sister of the deceased (3) S.Krishnamoorthy, Sister's son of the deceased (4) R.Jagadeesan, (5) T.Subramanian, (6) S.Sugumaran, (7) M.Adaikalam, (8) K.Thangamari, (9) Magendran and (10) K.Radhakrishnan are eye witnesses who have given statements. But 6th witness S.Sugumaran denies the presence of the Petitioner at the scene. Witnesses M.Adaikalam and Magendran have spoken about the presence of the petitioner near the scene of crime at the alleged time of occurrence. Witness Radhakrishnan had denied any knowledge about the incident. 10. The said Deputy Superintendent of Police has also examined about 14 persons who are BJP functionaries who attended the meting held on 13.1.2002 at MSK Marriage Hall, Kodavasal. Witness Radhakrishnan had denied any knowledge about the incident. 10. The said Deputy Superintendent of Police has also examined about 14 persons who are BJP functionaries who attended the meting held on 13.1.2002 at MSK Marriage Hall, Kodavasal. Witnesses numbered as 11 to 23 have confirmed that they attended the said meeting organised on 13.1.2002 at about 3 to 7 p.m., in which Thiru Paul Obte, was the chief guest and all these witnesses have reiterated the presence of the petitioner in the said Meeting. These witnesses have also clarified that signature of the participants were obtained only at the commencement of the meeting as a token to mark their presence and not for passing any resolutions. Therefore, signature of the petitioner for passing a resolution does not signify that he remained at the meeting place till the end. Therefore, the oral evidence of the participants of the Executive Committee Meeting alone lend assurance to the version of the petitioner. Witness No.24 also supports the version of the petitioner that he attended the said meeting. 11. According to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Thiru Venkateswaran, the eye witnesses stick to their earlier version and confirmed the presence of the Petitioner at the scene of crime, whereas the BJP party functionaries who attended the party's Executive Committee Meeting support the claim of the Petitioner that he has attended the meeting at the relevant point of time. He concluded his report by submitting that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly eye witnesses and that of the BJP functionaries should withstand the test of cross examination and then only it will be possible to come to the conclusion about the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence which is more than 50 kms away. 12. It is true that the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the FIR or in the inquest report and he has been implicated only at a later stage. The contention of the petitioner that he has been implicated in to political vendetta, he earlier belonged to AIADMK party and functioned as a District Secretary and later he joined the BJP party and therefore he was wantonly implicated at the instance of political rivals ha some force. The contention of the petitioner that he has been implicated in to political vendetta, he earlier belonged to AIADMK party and functioned as a District Secretary and later he joined the BJP party and therefore he was wantonly implicated at the instance of political rivals ha some force. Though initially only two names were mentioned in the FIR as assailants of the deceased when the wife of the deceased was admitted in the Hospital, in the Accident Register, it was stated that three known persons attacked her and her husband. She has also filed a Crl.O.P., before this court alleging that the Sub Inspector of Police and the Investigation Officer did not record her statement properly and based on that this court had passed orders to appoint another officer to conduct further investigation. Even this court has appointed another Investigating Officer, who filed a report as mentioned earlier. It is only during the trial of the case, after weighing the evidence based on Section 161 statement of the witnesses, the court can come to a conclusion. The statements given by the witnesses have to be weighed only after they are subjected to the test of cross examination. Therefore, quashing the charge sheet in a serious case, like murder, is not fair. Therefore, these Crl.O.Ps., filed by the Petitioner to quash the charge sheet or to transfer the investigation to CBI have to be naturally dismissed and they are hereby dismissed. The petitioner has to face the trial. 13. However, considering the delicate situation and political influence that may be used as contended by the petitioner, this court directs that the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District alone should conduct the trial and the case should not be transferred to any Fast Track Court. 14. With the above observations, both the Crl.O.Ps are dismissed.