ORDER 1. This petition has been registered as Public Interest Litigation on the basis of letter dated 9th September, 2011 addressed to the Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi by the District Bar Association, Deoghar. In the letter of the District Bar Association, Deoghar, it has been mentioned that matter of the land scam in the area was considered by the District Bar Association, Deoghar by convening an urgent meeting and it was found that a huge land scam occurred and Bhumafias with the connivance of the concerned Revenue Officers, including employees working under them conspired to loot away the public land, which is non transferable and which was Jamabandi raiyati land as well as Gochar and Pokhara land and for that purpose several documents have been forged and large number of mutation orders have been passed by the Revenue Authorities, on the basis of bogus land acquisition orders and gave colour of transferability in the nature of the land and there is every likelihood that the evidence is destroyed and damaged and in that sequence old records may also be tampered with. An inquiry was conducted by the administration and a Deoghar PS Case No.260 of 2011 has already been registered by lodging FIR under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Then the State Government thought it that the matter is required to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Instigation and therefore referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Instigation vide order dated 26th November, 2011. 2. The investigation is going on by the Central Bureau of Instigation. During this investigation, large number of documents which were collected departmentally and were kept in sealed box in the Record Room of Deoghar was stolen. Finding this situation, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector, Deoghar in presence of the District Land Acquisition Officer and Circle Officer. This report is dated 6th September, 2011. Therefore, before the matter was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation on 26th November, 2011 important material evidence was already removed or destroyed. 3. The inquiry report dated 6th September, 2011 is shocking. In the inquiry report, it is mentioned that one Sunil Kumar son of Jyotendra Poddar was used to be called in the Establishment Section of the Department as per the need. 3. The inquiry report dated 6th September, 2011 is shocking. In the inquiry report, it is mentioned that one Sunil Kumar son of Jyotendra Poddar was used to be called in the Establishment Section of the Department as per the need. As per the information received, before one day to the incident dated 30th August, 2011 i.e. 30th August, 2011 in afternoon the said Sunil Kumar came to the Record Room. This Sunil Kumar is the son of former employee of the department in the Record Room and who was in service upto 31st January, 2011. It has come on record that because of the poor vision of said Jyotendra Poddar, his son Sunil Kumar used to come to the Record Room to do the work of his father and used to sign on the Attendance Register for his father. He continued to work there for a longer period and, therefore, he acquired good experience in handling the records of the Record Room. Because of that reason, he was used to be called for getting help in work of the Record Room. It came on record that once in the year 2010 the said Sunil Kumar was found removing some important pages from the record of Revenue Execution Register and he was caught when he was keeping those documents in his pocket. From his pocket, three documents were recovered but no action was taken against him “in good faith” and this matter was not reported in writing anywhere. Because of this incident, the employee Jyotendra Poddar was transferred. Inspite of having knowledge of all these things, the said Sunil Kumar was allowed to handle the records in the record room. In addition to above facts, some more relevant facts are that the Record Room has one grill gate and thereafter another grill gate then, thereafter, wooden gate. All three gates are closed by three different locks and one can enter into the Record Room after opening all the locks of three gates. Thereafter one more lock is there and thereafter, only one can enter into the Record Room. On 30th August, 2011, it was reported that relevant documents are missing from the sealed box and it was found that all the four locks were in position and, therefore, it appears that all the four gates were opened by keys, for which duplicate and/or original keys may have been used. On 30th August, 2011, it was reported that relevant documents are missing from the sealed box and it was found that all the four locks were in position and, therefore, it appears that all the four gates were opened by keys, for which duplicate and/or original keys may have been used. This report dated 6th September, 2011 is very exhaustive. 4. We may recapitulate that this was matter relating to allegation of land looting of hundreds of acres of land in the one district. Finding this theft, one FIR was registered by the State police and during pendency of this Public interest Litigation and when the investigation is being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation of the main offence and is finding out whether there was serious criminality of large extent, the police investigation agency has filed the Challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against two persons and one of whom is said Sunil Kumar. Another accused is Dhrub Narayan Parihast. It is said that some Jamabandi was created in the name of the father of said Dhrub Narayan Parihast and, therefore, he has been implicated in the said criminal case, in pursuance of the FIR no.260 dated 30th August, 2011. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai vehemently submitted that no full investigation was conducted by the State police authorities/Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the matter related to hundreds of acres of the land, involving large number of influential persons as well as Government officials. In that situation, it is absolutely unbelievable that one son of employee alone to help one person alone, will destroy the evidence relevant for the purpose of hundreds acres of the land. It is submitted that the facts of the case which can be gathered from the report of the Additional Collector dated 6th September, 2011 and which is further fortified from the inquiry conducted by the District Bar Association, it is clear that large number of persons may be involved and to save their skin from the clutches of the CBI, the investigation in theft case of destroying evidence of criminal case which is being investigated by CBI, this chargesheet is only an eye wash and to save accused of CBI case. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in almost all earlier judgments have held that as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. even after filing the report (chargesheet) to the court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer may proceed to obtain further evidence or documents, as the case may be, and may forward his report to the concerned Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is a difference between investigation, reinvestigation, and further investigation. So far as reinvestigation is concerned, there may be some restrictions and some order may be required from the court but so far as Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is concerned it recognizes power of the Investigating Officer to obtain further evidence, oral or documentary even in a case where a report has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer under subsection (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. In the earliest case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in ( AIR 1979 S.C. 1791 ), has observed that in a case when report (chargesheet) has been submitted under subsection(2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate then, for further investigation formal permission is required, which, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, is only a procedure to give respect to the authority of the court where the matter has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer. However, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.S. Peter reported in ([2008] 2 S.C.C. 383), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no such permission for collection of the evidence by the Investigating Officer is required, in a case where report has been submitted under subsection(2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, for reinvestigation, permission of the court is required. The same view has been taken in the case of Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & ors. Vs. State of Gujrat reported in ([2009] 6 S.C.C. 332 ). However, in the case of Ramachandran Vs. R.Udhayakumar & Ors. reported in ([2008] 5 S.C.C. 413), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no reinvestigation is permissible but that view has not been approved in subsequent judgment and in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. reported in ([2010] 3 S.C.C. 571), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that reinvestigation is permissible in exceptional circumstances. Vs. Committee for Protection of democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. reported in ([2010] 3 S.C.C. 571), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that reinvestigation is permissible in exceptional circumstances. The issue was considered in other judgments also, like in the case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in ([2010] 12 S.C.C. 254) and in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in ([2011] 9 S.C.C. 182), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that normally the High Court cannot order reinvestigation. Much prior to this, in the year 1988, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration & another reported in ( 1988[Supp] S.C.C. 482), held that High Court can direct the trial court to grant permission for reinvestigation. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. reported in ([2012] 7 S.C.C. 407 ) says that reinvestigation and fresh investigation is permissible and in the year 2013 in the case of Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Gujrat and anr. reported in ([2013] 1 S.C.C. 197) (2013 (1) JLJR (SC) 264) also it has been held that the further instigation can be conducted after filing of the Challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, in the case of Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in ( AIR 2004 S.C. 3114 ), it has been held that court can issue direction for reinvestigation. One contrary view with respect to the reinvestigation has been taken in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. ([2009] 9 S.C.C. 129), which says that no suo motu power lies in the matter of reinvestigation. 6. Be that as it may, in sum and substance, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. clearly says as under : Section 173(8)Cr.P.C. “173. State of West Bengal and ors. ([2009] 9 S.C.C. 129), which says that no suo motu power lies in the matter of reinvestigation. 6. Be that as it may, in sum and substance, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. clearly says as under : Section 173(8)Cr.P.C. “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- xxx xxx (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (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 subsections (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 subsection (2).” 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the police has power to investigate further after filing the charge sheet in the court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and High Court can also direct the Investigating Officer to further investigate into the matter. This is a fit case where there appears to be involvement of private persons and government employees in the case of destroying evidence in criminal case and they have not been investigated by the police, the further investigation is necessary. It is appropriate to hand over further investigation to the CBI. In totality of the facts of the case and after going through the judgments referred above, we are of the considered opinion that when matter has already been referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the decision of the State Government dated 26th November, 2011, it will not be proper that two Investigating Agencies, namely, CBI and State police, may proceed to investigate in the offences; one of land scam and another to destroy the evidence of the said above offence. 8. Therefore, we deem it proper to direct the State Government to hand over the further investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the matter of criminal case registered in pursuance of the FIR no. 8. Therefore, we deem it proper to direct the State Government to hand over the further investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the matter of criminal case registered in pursuance of the FIR no. 260 dated 30th August, 2011 filed in Deoghar Town Police Station under the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar and where in pursuance of which the report(Challan) has already been submitted against two of the accused by the local police, the Central Bureau of Investigation will look into this case also. 9. On record, there is a report of the CBI dated 26th November, 2012. The CBI is, therefore, directed to submit a fresh status report on or before 12th August, 2013. 10. Post this matter on 12th August, 2013. Office is directed to give the complete set of the ordersheet/orders to the learned Amicus Curiae and copy of today's order be given to the learned counsel for the Union of India.