K. N. OJHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and learned AGA and have gone through the record. ( 2 ) INSTANT writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 9. 2. 05 passed by the State Government vide (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), whereby investigation relating to irregularities in auction sale by the Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as PWD) at Ballia, murder of four persons at the time of tender of contract of PWD and investigation in respect of death of Anshuman Chaubey son of Smt. Asha chaubey and all connected matters have been transferred from Civil Police to CB-CID for further investigation, under the signature of Special Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, lucknow. ( 3 ) THE fact of the case is that FIR No. 301 of 2004 under section 147/148/149/307/302 IPC, section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, district Ballia by petitioner Upendra Singh resident of Village Middha, P. S. Phephna, district Ballia on 3. 7. 2004 at 11. 35 a. m. against Kaushal Chaubey, Kamla Kant Chaubey, Ajit Chaubey, Anshuman Chaubey, chandrachurn @ Shera Chaubey, Naveen Chaturvedi, Arvind Chaubey, Bhagwati Rai, Krishan singh, Anup Chaubey, Munna Chaubey and Avneesh Chaubey all resident of district Ballia, containing the fact that when on the same day at 11. 10 a. m. Daya Shanker Singh, Kamal Singh, ajay Singh , Nardeshwar Pandey,santosh Kumar Singh, Dashram Singh, Satya Prakash Singh were going to participate in purchase of tender form from PWD Office ,ballia by their vehicles, the above mentioned accused persons fired on them as a result of which Daya Shanker Singh, satya Prakash Singh, Arvind Singh and Akhilesh Singh died. Another FIR bearing No. 83 of 2004 under section 307 IPC and Crime No. 84 of 2004 under section 25/27 Arms Act was lodged at P. S. Phepna, district Ballia by Ram Singh the then Station Officer, P. S. Reoti, district ballia on 3. 7. 2004 at 6. 30 p. m. and on the same day at 3. Another FIR bearing No. 83 of 2004 under section 307 IPC and Crime No. 84 of 2004 under section 25/27 Arms Act was lodged at P. S. Phepna, district Ballia by Ram Singh the then Station Officer, P. S. Reoti, district ballia on 3. 7. 2004 at 6. 30 p. m. and on the same day at 3. 10 p. m. when he alongwith police party was on petrol duty the police party was informed that two miscreants with arms had entered into the village Dharampura, he alongwith police party reached the village Dharampura and in encounter Anshuman Chaubey son of Kaushal Kumar Chaubey , village Chain, P. S. Haldi, district Ballia was injured and he was subsequently killed by the public persons and one other was successful in making his escape good. ( 4 ) ANSHUMAN Chaubey was son of Smt. Asha Chaubey who is opposite party 8 in this writ petition. ( 5 ) CHANDRACHURN Chaubey accused no. 5 of Crime No. 301 of 2004 mentioned above moved application in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia under section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. on 26. 7. 2004 that when he was returning in his Maruti Car on 3. 7. 04 at 10. 30 a. m. from the Bank and reached in front of the office of PWD Office, Ballia he saw that firing was going on between two rival groups of contractors of PWD as a result of which he received fire arms injuries, he was admitted in Ballia Hospital where his cousin brother Anshuman Chaubey also reached. Rival group of petitioner Upendra Singh alongwith his associates abducted Anshuman Chaubey and carried to some unknown place, therefore a direction be made to investigate the case. On his application the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia passed order on 13. 8. 2004 and directed the station House Officer, Kotwali, district Ballia to register the case and investigate. On which crime No. 301 A of 2004 under section 147/148/149/307/504/506/342 IPC, Police Station kotwali, district Ballia was registered against Uma Shanker Singh, Arvind Singh, Akhilesh singh, Daya Shanker Singh, Satya Prakash Singh, Upendra Singh, Ajay Singh, Kamal Singh, santosh Singh and Ors. . ( 6 ) IN Crime No. 301 of 2004 charge sheet was submitted, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions. . ( 6 ) IN Crime No. 301 of 2004 charge sheet was submitted, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions. S. T. No. 459 of 2004 State of U. P. v. Kaushal chaubey and Ors. is pending in which it is said that charges have been framed and the case is proceeding for evidence. ( 7 ) IN Crime No. 83 of 2004 and 84 of 2004 final report was submitted showing injuries had taken place in encounter to Anshuman Chaubey and he was killed by public who had assembled there against which Smt. Asha Chaubey mother of Anshuman Chaubey deceased moved application on 5. 7. 2004 to Principal Secretary, Home, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow that her son anshuman Chaubey aged about 15 years was studying in Allahabad University and on 3. 7. 2004 at 11. 00 a. m. he was informed that his cousin brother Chandrachum Chaubey @ Shera was caused injuries by fire arms and was admitted in District Hospital Ballia. He went there to see chandrachum Chaubey, Kamal Singh, Ajay Singh, Dash Ram Singh the then Station Officer, police Station Reoti, Sri Ram Singh who is relation of Kamal Singlh got him seated forcibly in his jeep, carried him to Sukhpura Police Station and killed him by causing fire arm injuries inside the Campus of Police Station and in order to save themselves the police party registered a false case that Anshuman Chaubey was killed in police encounter. It was also written in the complaint made by Smt. Asha Chaubey that her son was killed in collusion with the then superintendent of Police, Ballia. Therefore she made prayer that she had no hope of fair investigation by the Civil Police and investigation be got done by some other impartial Agency. No order was passed on her application dated 5. 7. 2004 then she filed Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 5365 of 2004 Smt. Asha Chaubey v. State of U. P and Ors. before this Court. This court directed the concerned authority on 22. 7. 2004 to pass appropriate order on the application of Smt. Asha Chaubey within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before the authority concerned. ( 8 ) ON 7. 7. before this Court. This court directed the concerned authority on 22. 7. 2004 to pass appropriate order on the application of Smt. Asha Chaubey within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before the authority concerned. ( 8 ) ON 7. 7. 2004 the then District Magistrate, Ballia sent letter to the Secretary, PWD, U. P. Government, Lucknow bearing D. O. Letter No. 1279/cmr in which there were complaints of irregularities being committed in accepting tender of contract of PWD and on 3. 7. 2004 at about 11. 00 a. m. due to dispute of two rival groups of contractors four persons were killed on the spot and many real ,facts were concealed, therefore the District Magistrate, Ballia requested for high level enquiry into the matter. The Secretary, PWD, U. P. Government, Lucknow vide letter dated 10. 7. 2004 sent letter to the Principal Secretary, Home, U. P. Government that considering the murders which were committed and also irregularities in the contract it was desirable that investigation be made by CB-CID. ( 9 ) IN view of the above circumstances impugned order dated 9. 2. 05 was passed by the State government containing the fact that considering the D. O. Letter No. 5264/23-13/04 (11) (5)/em/04 dated 10. 7. 2004 sent by the Secretary, PWD, letter dated 7. 7. 2004 sent by the District Magistrate, Ballia, complaint of Smt. Asha Chaubey against the police authorities and the rival groups in respect of alleged murder of her son Anshuman Chaubey by the police and rival groups and the murders which were committed on 3. 7. 2004 at the time of tender, the investigation was transferred with immediate effect to CB-CID. It was also directed that investigation be completed within three months. ( 10 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by Sri Naveen Chandra Tripathi, Under Secretary, Home department, Civil Secretariat, Government of U. P. , Lucknow that sale of tender forms relating to constructions of road to the tune of Rs. 3. 25 crores was fixed from 1. 7. 2004 to 5. 7. 2004 but pwd did not send any information with regard to the sale of tender forms either to the district administration or to the police and on 3. 7. 2004 at 11. 00 a. m. quarrel ensued amongst contractors for purchase of tenders forms and four persons were brutally shot dead. 7. 2004 to 5. 7. 2004 but pwd did not send any information with regard to the sale of tender forms either to the district administration or to the police and on 3. 7. 2004 at 11. 00 a. m. quarrel ensued amongst contractors for purchase of tenders forms and four persons were brutally shot dead. The State Government receieved a representation alongwith a copy of order dated 22. 7. 2004 passed by this Court in writ Petition No. 5365 of 2004 Smt. Asha Chaubey v. State of U. P. in which direction was made to pass appropriate order on her application about investigation by independent Agency with regard to the death of her son Anshuman Chaubey by Police in fake encounter after picking him away from hospital. It has been deposed in the affidavit that the State Government after considering the recommendations of the Secretary, PWD, District Magistrate, Ballia, representation of Smt. Asha Chaubey in the light of the order passed by this Court in above mentioned writ petition, four murders on the spot, involvement of PWD officials with contractors in respect of alleged fake encounter, the Government decided to hand over the investigation of the entire matter to Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department. Thus the investigation was transferred considering the whole matter in totality of all events concerned. The Under Secretary has deposed in affidavit that considering the incident of heinous murder at public place in broad day light, hampering the law and order of the district and the letters of district Magistrate, Ballia, Secretary PWD and the direction of this Court to dispose of representation of Smt. Asha Chaubey order dated 9. 2. 05 has been passed in respect of all connected matters. It has also been deposed that Crime Branch of CID is a premier investigating agency of the State Government having capacity and competence to investigate such complicated cases. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that when the case in Crime No. 301 of 2004 in respect of four murders has been committed to the court of Sessions, charges have been framed and evidence is to be recorded it is not in the interest of justice that investigation be transferred to some other agency. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that when the case in Crime No. 301 of 2004 in respect of four murders has been committed to the court of Sessions, charges have been framed and evidence is to be recorded it is not in the interest of justice that investigation be transferred to some other agency. It is further submitted that Crime No. 301a of 2004 is not a cross -case of crime No. 301 of 2004 as the death of Anshuman Chaubey did take place at some other place outside the Campus of PWD Ballia. It is further submitted that impugned order dated 9. 2. 05 does not contain any reason as to why investigation was being transferred to CB-CID and it being not a speaking order, the order be set aside. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has cited 1997 (34) ACC 371 Bhopal and Ors. v. State of u. P. in which it has been laid down by this Court that if local police is not investigating the crime fairly the court may issue a direction for investigation by CB-CID or some other impartial agency so that crime is properly investigated and confidence of public at large is restored. Government Notification No. 4173/c/6/3/3/27p/94 dated 15th September, 1995 also has been discussed which contemplates that normally investigation should be done by Civil Police concerned but if there are complications in the investigation to such extent that it becomes not possible for the Civil Police to make fair investigation or the local conditions of the place are such that normal, fair and impartial investigation is not expected from the Civil Police a direction can be made for transfer of investigation to CB-CID. ( 13 ) IN instant case there is clear allegation of Smt. Asha Chaubey that her son Anshuman chaubey was caught by the police and carried in jeep thereafter killed and she had no faith in civil Police of Ballia. She also made allegations against the Station Officer and the then superintendent of Police. She filed writ petition before this Court in which direction was made that she had no hope of fair investigation from Civil Police of Ballia and therefore investigation be transferred. This Court passed order that State Government had to pass order on it considering the circumstances of the case. She filed writ petition before this Court in which direction was made that she had no hope of fair investigation from Civil Police of Ballia and therefore investigation be transferred. This Court passed order that State Government had to pass order on it considering the circumstances of the case. Considering the letters sent by the District Magistrate, Ballia and secretary, PWD and also the complaint made by Smt. Asha Chaubey and further the gravity of broad day light four murders the State Government arrived at the conclusion that all these issues are inter-connected therefore their investigation should be made by one Agency other than Civil police. Since Civil Police is also involved in the case therefore for fair and impartial investigation it was necessary that investigation be made by some independent Agency. It is in the light of these circumstances that impugned order dated 9. 2. 2005 was passed. The order of the copy is Annexure-12 to the writ petition, shows that irregularities and illegalities committed by the PWD relating to contract in crores, death of Anshuman Chaubey in respect of which his mother made complaint and murder of four persons on 3. 7. 2004 in PWD Campus an these matters were to be investigated by CB-CID. The State Government has not written whether crime No. 301 A of 2004 is cross case of Crime No. 301 of 2004 or not. Order dated 9. 2. 05 shows that since it is connected matter therefore irrespective of the fact whether it is cross case or not, all these connected matters or offences are to be investigated by one and the same Agency other than Civil Police, Ballia. Besides it, it is not necessary while transferring the investigation from one agency to other that detailed reasons be given; If the circumstances exist the investigation can be transferred and the State Government is fully competent to transfer the investigation. Since the State Government found complications in investigation and there being doubt about fair investigation by the Civil Police while allegations are being made against the civil Police by one of the parties and in these circumstances the investigation has been transferred. Therefore there does not appear any illegality or injustice being caused to any of the parties. ( 14 ) THE respondents have also cited 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1603 Hasan hasan Bhal Wali bhai Qureshi v. State of Gujrat and Ors. Therefore there does not appear any illegality or injustice being caused to any of the parties. ( 14 ) THE respondents have also cited 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1603 Hasan hasan Bhal Wali bhai Qureshi v. State of Gujrat and Ors. wherein it has been laid down by Honble the Apex Court that when defective investigation comes to light during the course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permit. It is ordinarily desirable and all the more so in this case, that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial. Since an effective trial for a actual offences found during the course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. ( 15 ) IN 2005 SCC (Crl) 1269 Munshi Singh Gautam and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh it has been held by Honble the Apex Court that ocular evidence of the complicity of Police personnel is rarely available in cases of police torture or custodial death. They alone can explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody has died, bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood. It is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often they not even disclose the truth to save their colleagues. Since in this case there is allegation against the then police officers and officials about the death of Anshuman Chaubey therefore if the State Government has transferred the investigation from Civil Police to C3-CID there appears no illegality in the order. ( 16 ) IN 2004 SCC (Crl.) 999 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujrat known as "best Bakery case" it has been laid down by Honble the Apex Court that accused should not be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation. To do so would tantamount to play into hands of investigating Officer. If investigation is defective and perpetuating mischief, if investigation is dis-honest and faulty and causes injustice in case the court has to pass necessary order to remedy such defects. To do so would tantamount to play into hands of investigating Officer. If investigation is defective and perpetuating mischief, if investigation is dis-honest and faulty and causes injustice in case the court has to pass necessary order to remedy such defects. ( 17 ) IN AIR1971 SC 1106 , 1973 (0 )BLJR275 , 1971 Lablc727 , (1971)1 SCC662 , [1971 ]3 SCR863 Makeshwar Nath Srivastava v. State of and AIR1980 SC 326 , 1980 Crilj98 , (1980 )1 SCC554 , [1980 ]2 SCR16 state of Bihar and Ors. v. J. A. C. Saldanna it has been held by Honble the Apex Court that to have superintendence, performance and control of the investigation is the jurisdiction of the State government through its Executive and Police machinery under section 36 of Cr. P. C. and Section 3 of the Police Act. Therefore when a direction is made for a particular authority to make investigation in the case that is not to be ordinarily interfere with by the judiciary, as the field of investigation and trial are separate. In instant case when the State Government after considering the circumstances of the happening, alleged involvement of the Police, heinous nature of the crime etc. has exercised discretion to transfer the investigation, there does not appear any sufficient ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the State Government and to quash the impugned order. ( 18 ) IN instant case in Crime No. 301 of 2004 charges have been framed. In S. T. No. 459 of 2004 in Crime No. 83 of 2004 and 84 of 2004 final report has been submitted by the Civil Police exonerating the police officials from the alleged murder of Anshuman Chaubey. Evidence has not been recorded in any case. Considering the gravity of the offences alleged involvement of the police in one of the offences and considering the heavy irregularities in tender and auction sale of contract involving procedural technicalities if the State Government has passed the impugned order this order cannot be said contrary to the law laid down by Honble the Apex Court in the above cited cases. Therefore instant petition deserves dismissal with the result S. T. No. 459 of 2004 has not to proceed and the case has to proceed on the submission of the report of CB-CID by which the investigation is to be made. Therefore instant petition deserves dismissal with the result S. T. No. 459 of 2004 has not to proceed and the case has to proceed on the submission of the report of CB-CID by which the investigation is to be made. Likewise the final report accepted in Crime No. 83 of 2004 and 84 of 2004, Police Station Phephna, district Ballia will also be taken to be non-existent as investigation is to be made by CB-CID. ( 19 ) CONSEQUENTLY the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. S. S. Kulshrestha, J. ( 20 ) THE width and amplitude of the powers of the State for directing further investigation and transferring it from local police to other agency (CBCID) in the context of the representation made by the complainant of one of the cases and the District Magistrate/secretary, P. W. D. of the state of U. P. , falls for consideration in this writ petition. While I respectfully agree with the conclusion arrived at by brother Justice K. N. Ojha, I would, however, like to supplement the followings to the above conclusion. ( 21 ) THE option for making further investigation is adumbrated in section 173 (8) of the Code of criminal Procedure (the Code ). That sub-section reads thus: 173 (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2 ). ( 22 ) FROM the plain reading of this sub-section it is clear that the right of the police to further investigate is not exhausted and the police can exercise such right as option as necessary when fresh information comes to light. It is un-debatable that the police may proceed with further investigation. ( 22 ) FROM the plain reading of this sub-section it is clear that the right of the police to further investigate is not exhausted and the police can exercise such right as option as necessary when fresh information comes to light. It is un-debatable that the police may proceed with further investigation. In that regard the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi administration), AIR1979 SC 1791 , 1979 Crilj1346 , (1979 )2 scc322 , [1979 ]2 SCR923 , has laid down that despite a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence upon a police report, the right of police to further investigate even under the Old 1898 code was not exhaustive and the police could exercise such right often as necessary when fresh information came to light. (This position is beyond pale of controversy because of sub-section (8) of section 173 of the New Code ). But then a rider was added stating that after cognizance has been taken, then with a view to maintain independency of the magistracy and the judiciary, interests of the purity of administration of criminal justice and interests of the comity of the various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would "ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light". A Full Bench of the Patna High court has also held that section 173 (8) does not restrict reopening of investigation on the fresh materials which were not available earlier [see Shankar Ram v. State, PLJR 287 (FB)]. From a bare reading of sub section (8) of section 173 of the Code the position is clear that the police may proceed with further investigation where new facts have arisen. The expression "nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after report under sub-section (2)" is conceptually capable of reading that the investigation is the process of collection of evidence and even after the submission of the report, it should yet to be capable of being supplemented or re-started, if the circumstances of the case so justify. The language employed in a statute itself is determinative factor of the legislative intent, permitting further investigation. The language employed in a statute itself is determinative factor of the legislative intent, permitting further investigation. ( 23 ) HERE in this case the mother of one of the victims of this incident made a complaint to the state Government that the investigation has not been carried out properly and the filing of the report was not justified. The District Magistrate and the Secretary, P. W. D. have also questioned the manner of inviting tenders resulting this unfortunate episode and desired investigation on these vital points also. State Government having considered this communication, passed the impugned order for further investigation and also transferred it to CBCID. This was within the powers of superintendence of the State as was also held in the case of State of Bihar v. J. A. C saldana, AIR1980 SC 326 , 1980 Crilj98 , (1980 )1 SCC554 , [1980 ]2 scr16. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the vital points raised by the District Magistrate/secretary, P. W. D. or the mother of the victim, the investigation had been done. It is to the contrary said by the learned counsel for the respondent that the investigating officers have withheld investigation on these vital points. ( 24 ) IT has next been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a device adopted by the complainant to thwart the course of justice by having distorted version/evidence in the course of further investigation so that the real person involved in this case may escape from criminal liability. Identical question came up for consideration in the case of Hemant dhasmana v. C. B. I. , AIR2001 SC 2721 , 2001 (49 )BLJR2332 , 2001 crilj4190 , 2001 (4 )Crimes183 (SC ), JT2001 (6 )SC 473 , 2001 (5 )SCALE312 , (2001 )7 scc536 , wherein the Apex Court made the following observations: although the said sub-section does not, in specific terms, mention about the powers of the Court to order further investigation the power of the police to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into motion at the instance of the Court. When any such order is passed by a Court which has the jurisdiction to do so it would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be for the ends of justice. When any such order is passed by a Court which has the jurisdiction to do so it would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be for the ends of justice. After the further investigation, the authority conducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusion and reiterate it or it can reach a different conclusion. During such extended investigation the officers can either act on the same materials or on other materials which may come to their notice. It is for the investigating agency to exercise its power when it is put back to that track. If they come to the same conclusion it is of added advantage to the persons against whom the allegations were made, and if the allegations are found false again the complainant would be in trouble. So from any point of view the Special Judges direction would be of advantage for the ends of justice. It is too premature for the High Court to predict that the investigating Officer would not be able to collect any further material at all. That is an area which should have been left to the Investigating Officer to survey and recheck. ( 25 ) IT shall not be out of point to mention that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived motion or a view that in the course of further investigation true facts shall be distorted. This is too wide available and generalized statement. It is to be not*ed that the role of the investigating agencies and courts is that of watch dog and not of a blood hound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view. Further in the case of C. B. I. v. Rajesh Gandhi, AIR 1997 SC 94 it was held by the Apex Court that "if investigation by the local police is not satisfactory, a further investigation is not precluded. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view. Further in the case of C. B. I. v. Rajesh Gandhi, AIR 1997 SC 94 it was held by the Apex Court that "if investigation by the local police is not satisfactory, a further investigation is not precluded. " As has already been mentioned that in the present case the material on record shows that the investigation by the local police is lacking on material points. As a result the State Government directed further investigation. ( 26 ) WE do not find any illegality in the impugned order directing further investigation and also entrusting the same to other agency for investigation. In the result the petition is dismissed. Before parting with the case, we wish to clarify that nothing said herein before shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the complaint or the reports made by the District magistrate/secretary of the concerned Department. . .