Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 546 (GAU)

Binod Kumar Jain v. State of Assam

2019-05-04

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. The Extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by means of filing these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the facts are common, for the sake of brevity, the facts of the first petition is narrated below. 2. A senior citizen is before this Court as the original petitioner praying for justice. The facts would reveal an unholy nexus of high ranking Police officials with some dreaded criminals with the object to grab land in a prime area of Guwahati City and in that process there is the instance of abduction and murder. A bare glance of the case pleaded in the writ petition as well as the various affidavits would reveal that in spite of glaring materials and evidence, no investigation, worth its name has been done and the same is obviously because of the apparent involvement of some Police officers including a high ranking one. It seems that after holding a high post, a section of people tend to forget that no one is above the law and under the Rule of law, all persons are to be treated equally. 3. This petition was initially filed by Smti Magni Devi Jain with the grievance that there was total inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking up any action against the land grabbers and land mafias including a high ranking Police officer who by use of influence, muscle power, fabricating documents and other illegal activities were involved in grabbing of a plot of land in the heart of the city of the Guwahati and in the said process abducted and killed the Care taker of the land in question. 4. From the year 1960, the original petitioner (who expired during the pendency of this writ petition) has been the absolute and recorded owner of a plot of land measuring 1B 1 Katha 12 Lechas in Mouza-Ulubari in the city of the Guwahati. Subsequently, one Inder Singh Dell (since deceased) was appointed by the original petitioner as Caretaker of the land in question as he was a family friend for more than 30 years. 5. Subsequently, one Inder Singh Dell (since deceased) was appointed by the original petitioner as Caretaker of the land in question as he was a family friend for more than 30 years. 5. It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that over that plot of land, One Surajmal Gangwal was a permissive occupier in respect of a part of land which measured about 2 Katha 7 Lechas. On the death of Surajmal Gangwal, the respondent No. 14 who was his son was allowed to continue with the permissive occupation and in this regard, the said respondent No. 14 had executed an affidavit on 21.06.2006 as well as a Deed of Disclaimer being deed No. 6606/2006. 6. Sometime during October, 2009, the Caretaker had started receiving threats directing him to vacate the land. Though, such threatenings had come from persons who were not known to him, it appeared that the respondent No. 14 along with his sisters and respondent Nos. 15 & 16 were acting in connivance. The petitioners having smelled some foul play made enquiries and on such enquiry, found that the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 had wrongfully projected themselves to be absolute owners of 1 (one) Bigha of the said land and jointly sold the same to Smti Bandana Sarma, the respondent No. 17 who is the wife of Shri Khagen Sharma, the respondent No. 21 who was at that point of time, a high ranking Police Officer. The petitioner could detect that a registered Sale Deed No. 8113 dated 13.07.2009 was executed in that regard. 7. It appears that due to some discrepancies, the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 13.7.2009 was found to be insufficient for mutation of the land and therefore, a Deed of Rectification No. 12483/2009 dated 28.10.2009 was made between the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 with the respondent No. 17. The said Rectification Deed gave the false declaration that the original petitioner was the mother of the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 and she had already expired and that the father of the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 was also known as Pannalal. The same rectification was done because the patta of the land stood in the name of the original petitioner with the following descriptions:- 'Smti Magni Devi, Husband Panna lal'. 8. The aforesaid illegalities which were of the highest order did not stop there. On 5.11.2009, the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 was also known as Pannalal. The same rectification was done because the patta of the land stood in the name of the original petitioner with the following descriptions:- 'Smti Magni Devi, Husband Panna lal'. 8. The aforesaid illegalities which were of the highest order did not stop there. On 5.11.2009, the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 along with few other persons came to the house of the Caretaker and threatened him of dire consequences on the failure to vacate the land. On the same date, at about 10.00 PM, 5 (five) persons came in a Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. AS-01K-3810 to the house of the petitioner and after misbehaving with her son Shri Mahavir Jain threatened of dire consequence. Such threatening continued again during the late hours of the night. On 07.11.2009, some unknown persons came to the plot of land and raised some temporary structures. When the situation became serious, Shri Paramjit Singh, the son of the Caretaker and Shri Binod Kumar Jain, son of the original petitioner had lodged 2(two) separate FIRs before the Paltan Bazar Police Station which were respectively registered as Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 613/2009 & 614/2009. Simultaneously, apprehending threat to the life of the Caretaker, the petitioner approached the authorities in the Government to immediately provide security to the Caretaker. In this regard, on 11.12.2009, a direction was issued from the office of the Chief Minister of Assam to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), to take appropriate actions; however, nothing was seen to have been done. At the same time, threatening upon the Caretaker continued from the respondent Nos. 15 & 16 along with their husbands and they were joined by a person called Saikia who said was representing the respondent Nos. 17 & 21. Continuous threatening was given to him that his house would be burnt down and the Caretaker would also be eliminated. The said respondents would claim that the land belonged to the respondent No. 17 whose husband is a higher ranking Police Officer and the entire Police force was under him. 17 & 21. Continuous threatening was given to him that his house would be burnt down and the Caretaker would also be eliminated. The said respondents would claim that the land belonged to the respondent No. 17 whose husband is a higher ranking Police Officer and the entire Police force was under him. As the situation became unbearable, 2(two) more FIRs were lodged in the Paltan Bazar Police Station on 20.02.2010 and 02.03.2010 which were also registered as Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 101/2010 and so far as the 2nd FIR is concerned another case was registered in connection of which, a vehicle which was damaged was referred to the Police for MVI report. 9. The sequence which followed is not only absolutely shocking but appears to be a scene from a thriller. On 07.04.2010, the Caretaker Shri Inder Singh Dell was abducted by certain persons who came in a Maruti Van and he was brutally murdered, his dead body was recovered by the Police on 8.4.2010 prior to which, on 7.4.2010 itself, an FIR was lodged by his son Shri Paramjit Singh. In the FIR, it was categorically mentioned that at 11.00 AM on 7.4.2010 one Shri Saikia who claimed to be a man of Shri Khagen Sharma threatened his father and asked him to vacate the house failing which he would face dire consequences. 10. I have heard Shri S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Ms. K. Phukan, the learned State counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 22, Shri I.H. Saikia, for the respondent No. 6, Shri S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI for the Union of India, Shri A Khanikor, for the respondent Nos. 17 & 21 and Shri R. Borpujari for the Revenue Department. The same learned counsels appear for the respective parties in the 2nd writ petition as well. 11. Respondent No. 14(a), 15, 16, 18, 19 & 20 in W.P.(C) 2460/2010 were served by paper publications which was brought on record vide an affidavit dated 04.12.2017. 12. It appears from the writ petition that there was a large scale conspiracy to grab the land and another set of persons (respondent Nos. 11. Respondent No. 14(a), 15, 16, 18, 19 & 20 in W.P.(C) 2460/2010 were served by paper publications which was brought on record vide an affidavit dated 04.12.2017. 12. It appears from the writ petition that there was a large scale conspiracy to grab the land and another set of persons (respondent Nos. 18 to 20) were also involved in selling/purchasing of the said land and in this connection a fabricated registered Deed of Power of Attorney dated 29.04.2009 was executed in favour of one Bipul Boro (respondent No. 18). The illegality were so blatant that even the mandatory requirement of having the photograph of the PoA holder was done away with and the same could not have been done without the connivance of the registering authorities. It appears that based on the said PoA dated 29.04.2009, the land was sold twice in a short period, first by the respondent No. 18 (Shri Bipul Boro) to respondent No. 19 vide Deed dated 04.06.2009 and thereafter, by the respondent No. 19 to the respondent No. 20 vide Deed dated 12.06.2009. In the entire process, there was active participation of the respondent No. 14 along with his sister who projected himself to be the absolute owner and not only was involved in fraudulent activities but was also one of the conspirators in commission of the heinous offence of abduction and murder. 13. The petitioner has also alleged that the entire sequence of events and gruesome acts of abduction and murder committed openly was possible only due to the involvement and patronage of Shri Khagen Sarma, the respondent No. 21 who was at that time a high ranking Police Officer. There are adequate pleadings in the writ petition regarding active participation in the illegal activities by one Shri Saikia who all along openly asserted that he was representing the respondent Nos. 17 & 21. The threatening given by the said Shri Saikia to the deceased have been stated in details in the writ petition and the entire object appears to be to illegally grab the land which is in the heart of the Guwahati city. It appears that the concerned respondents became so desperate to grab the land that recourse to the extreme offence of abduction and murder was taken without, for a moment thinking about the consequence. It appears that the concerned respondents became so desperate to grab the land that recourse to the extreme offence of abduction and murder was taken without, for a moment thinking about the consequence. The active support and backing by the respondent No. 21 on whose behalf the entire offence was committed seem to have led the perpetrators of the offence to believe that they were above the law. It is a matter of irony that till today, no investigation worth its name has been done in the police cases lodged even prior to such abduction and murder and the later Police cases also which has led the petitioners to approach this Court for a direction to hand over the investigation to an independent agency such as the CBI. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner had expired and this Court vide order dated 09.08.2017 passed in I.A. 573/2016 had allowed impleadment of the legal heirs of the original petitioner to be the petitioners in this case. So far as W.P.(C) 2767/2010 is concerned, the same is filed by Shri Paramjeet Singh Dell who is the son of the victim Shri Inder Singh Dell and has presented the writ petition with an identical cause of action. In the said writ petition allegation has been made of gross inaction and lack of proper investigation in the Police case because of the obvious reason of involvement of the respondent No. 21 who was at that time the Addl. Director General of Police (Special Branch). 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including the case reported in (2002) 5 SCC 521 (Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. & Ors., Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr.) has laid down the parameters that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for a direction for enquiry by the CBI can be entertained and adjudicated only when a prima facie case is made out by the pleadings and materials on record and not as a routine manner. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr.) has laid down the parameters that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for a direction for enquiry by the CBI can be entertained and adjudicated only when a prima facie case is made out by the pleadings and materials on record and not as a routine manner. For ready reference, the relevant part of Paragraph-5 is quoted here-in-below:- "5...While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the Judgment of this Court in the case of common cause". 15. In view of such caveat been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the question which will arise for determination in this case is whether a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner based on the pleadings and materials on record to grant such prayer. This Court will hasten to add that apart from the pleadings and materials placed on record by the petitioners, startling revelation have been made by some respondents who are amongst the highest ranking police personnel of the State which not only supports the case of the petitioners but exposes an unholy nexus between certain police personnel and land mafia to which the investigating agency was made an helpless and mute spectator. In this regard, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director General of Police in which amongst others, a status report dated 04.06.2010 have been annexed is required to be noted. For ready reference, the relevant part of the Status report is quoted hereinbelow:- "During investigation, I have visited both the P.O., re-examined some witnesses and examined some more witnesses. The relatives of the victim corroborating the contents of FIR, stated that Inder Singh Dell was appointed as Caretaker of the plot of land in which he was residing, by its owner, Sri Mahavir Jain since 30/35 years. The relatives of the victim corroborating the contents of FIR, stated that Inder Singh Dell was appointed as Caretaker of the plot of land in which he was residing, by its owner, Sri Mahavir Jain since 30/35 years. But since 6/7 months, one Saikia from SB Orgn. Claiming himself as a man of Sri Khagen Sharma, (ADGP, SB), used to visit there and asked Inder Singh Dell to vacate the house. Otherwise he would face with dire consequence. On the ill-fated day at about 11.00 AM also that Saikia came and threatened Inder Singh Dell to vacate the plot. But they failed to assert the actual name of so-called Saikia. The wife of the victim claimed that she could recognize one of the culprits as above-mentioned Saikia which is contradictory with statement made by the complainant Paramjeet. They also expressed their suspicion that Saikia is directly involved with this crime while Munni Gangowal, Lily Gangowal, Sahera Begum (tenant), Malkit Sing (husband of Lily Gangowal) also abetted the culprits". 16. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Guwahad City had also filed an affidavit dated 5.10.2010 and Paragraph 19 of the said affidavit is also relevant to expose that the cover-up story which was sought to be introduced regarding involvement of underground militants was absolutely motivated and concocted. For ready reference Paragraph 19 of the said affidavit is quoted hereinbelow:- "19. That with regard to the statements made in Para 26, 27 & 29 of the writ petition, the answering deponent states that the same was not reported. However, on 10.11.2009, at about 12.40 AM acting on the source information that some armed ULFA militant had been hiding in the house of Munni Gangowal, a CRPF team raided the house. No. ULFA members could be traced. The information received was found to be motivated. However, five guest of the family were found staying the night in the house. This refers to Paltan Bazar P.S. GDE No. 449 dated 10.11.2009. Sri Raju Gangowal was found to have shifted to rented house at Birubari". 17. No. ULFA members could be traced. The information received was found to be motivated. However, five guest of the family were found staying the night in the house. This refers to Paltan Bazar P.S. GDE No. 449 dated 10.11.2009. Sri Raju Gangowal was found to have shifted to rented house at Birubari". 17. It may also be noted that this Court vide order dated 05.06.2018 had directed the Police authorities to place the Status of the case on record: Pursuant thereto, an affidavit was filed on 11.06.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Guwahati in which it was stated that all the three police cases were arising out of the same offence and were accordingly amalgamated into Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 610/2009. However, with regard to the incident of the year 2009-10, the Charge-Sheet was said to be filed only on 15.07.2014. The copy of the Charge-Sheet annexed to the said affidavit does not disclose that either the respondent No. 17 or 21 or for that matter, the person named 'Saikia' have been made accused. There are adequate pleadings in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the DGP that the person named 'Saikia' is none but SB Constable Mukut Saikia who had admitted on interrogation that he was deputed by the ADGP, SB, Shri Khagen Sarma to keep watch on the said plot of land on the alleged ground of involvement of some extremists elements. But, whatsoever, may be the ground, the said Mukut Saikia had admitted of frequently visiting the house and locking the main gate of the compound. 18. The wife of the deceased Smti Balvinder Kaur had also stated during the investigation that the said Mukut Saikia used to threatened them and on the fateful day i.e. 07.04.2010 at about 11.00 AM, the said Shri Saikia had again threatened the deceased with dire consequences on the failure to vacate the land. That apart, the said Shri Mukut Saikia is one of the witnesses to the fabricated Sale Deed dated 10.07.2009 as well as the Deed of Rectification wherein absurd facts were stated to facilitate the mutation. 19. The Director General of Police, Assam has also filed an affidavit dated 23.06.2010, in which inquiry/status report dated 27.1.2010, 04.06.2010, 13.05.2010 and another undated report have been annexed. 19. The Director General of Police, Assam has also filed an affidavit dated 23.06.2010, in which inquiry/status report dated 27.1.2010, 04.06.2010, 13.05.2010 and another undated report have been annexed. The said Status reports also states that on various occasions there has been interference by some police personnel other than District Police having jurisdiction which was wholly uncalled for. The involvement of the Van which was under the use of the SB, HQ has also come on record by means of letter dated 4.06.2010 from the Special Superintendent of Police, CHO, to the ADGP (L/O) in connection with Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 217/2010. 20. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) in his affidavit dated 23.06.2010 has also stated that the matter regarding fabrication in the Deeds leading to the mutation was already referred to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Guwahati and an inquiry report from the Circle officer, Guwahati was also received. 21. The respondent No. 6 who was the Deputy Registrar, Kamrup in his affidavit dated 19.10.2010 has simply stated that he had acted in accordance with law and has cited certain case laws regarding protection under Section 86 of the Registration Act. 22. The materials which are on record, the relevant of which have also been discussed in this order indicate that the entire investigation has been done in a manner which, to say the least was wholly unfair, partial, motivated and a mere eye-wash. The cover-up tried to be done and the activities connected with the abduction and murder, namely, fabrication of Deeds, forged Sale Deeds, forged Deed of rectification etc are prima facie demonstrative of the fact that in spite of glaring evidence against the concerned respondents, it was only because of the high office held by the respondent No. 21 who himself is a beneficiary and active participant in the formal process of transfer of the land, a shield of protection was extended. However, it appears that the said respondents lost sight of the fact that the long arms of the law will someday catch up. 23. There are several other materials which will lead to a conclusion that the investigation done was not at all satisfactory. However, it appears that the said respondents lost sight of the fact that the long arms of the law will someday catch up. 23. There are several other materials which will lead to a conclusion that the investigation done was not at all satisfactory. However, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahngoo Ram Arya (Supra), it is the availability of the prima facie materials which would be crucial for exercising powers by a writ Court before handing over a case for further/proper investigation by an independent agency like the CBI. 24. Shri S.C. Keyal, the learned ASG of India representing the Union of India submits that the materials placed before this Court leads to a prima facie conclusion that proper investigation does not appear to have been done and if a direction is given to the CBI for investigation, the same should not be restricted to a particular police case but to the entire gamut of the incident starting from the beginning till the abduction and murder of late Inder Singh Dell including the allegation of illegally transferring the land by fabrication of documents etc. 25. Shri S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 (Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors.). The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the major case laws holding the field and it would be profitable to refer certain observations/directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the said case. The relevant extracts which would come to the aid of this Court to take a decision are extracted herein below:- "73....It was reiterated in Babubhai that in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, may direct investigation de novo, if it is satisfied that non-interference would ultimately result in failure of justice. In such an eventuality endorsement of the investigation to an independent agency to make a fresh probe may be well merited. That not only fair trial but fair investigation is also a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore investigation ought to be fair, transparent and judicious, was re-emphasised. In such an eventuality endorsement of the investigation to an independent agency to make a fresh probe may be well merited. That not only fair trial but fair investigation is also a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore investigation ought to be fair, transparent and judicious, was re-emphasised. The expression "ordinarily" as used in Section 173(8) of the Code was noted again to rule that in exceptional circumstances however, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice, a court may still direct investigation de novo. 75. That the extra-ordinary power of the constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of direction to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution, was underlined in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights as adverted to hereinabove. Observing that although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the party has levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. 76. In Kashmeri Devi, being satisfied, in the prevailing facts and circumstances that effort had been made to protect and shield the guilty officers of the police who allegedly had perpetrated the offence of murder involved, this Court directed the Magistrate concerned before whom the charge-sheet had been submitted, to exercise its power under Section 173(8) of Code to direct the CBI for proper and thorough investigation of the case and to submit an additional charge-sheet in accordance with law.. 77. In Godalure M.J. Cherian, this Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, lodged in public interest, did after taking note of the fact that charge sheet had already been submitted, direct the CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offence involved. 77. In Godalure M.J. Cherian, this Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, lodged in public interest, did after taking note of the fact that charge sheet had already been submitted, direct the CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offence involved. In recording this conclusion, this Court did take note of the fact that the nuns who had been the victim of the tragedy did not come forward to identify the culprits and that as alleged by the petitioners, the four persons set up by the police as accused were not the real culprits and that the victims were being asked to accept them to be so. The paramount consideration for the direction issued was to secure justice between the parties and to instill confidence in public mind. The same imperative did impel this Court to issue a similar direction for fresh investigation by the CBI in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association. Here as well the investigation otherwise had been completed and charge-sheet was submitted. 78. This Court dealing with the proposition that once a charge sheet is filed, it would then be exclusively in the domain of the competent court to deal with the case on merits in accordance with law and that the monitoring of the investigation would cease in all respects, held, in particular, in K.V. Rajendran in reiteration of the enunciations aforestated, that though it is ordinarily so, the power of transferring investigation in rare and exceptional cases for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, can be made invoking its constitutional power available, to ensure a fair, honest and complete investigation. 79. The precedential ordainment against absolute prohibition for assignment of investigation to any impartial agency like the CBI, submission of the charge-sheet by the normal investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit in an exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in order to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to consolidate the confidence of the victim(s) and the public in general in the justice administering mechanism, is thus unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a measure however can by no means be a matter of course or routine but has to be essentially adopted in order to live up to and effectuate the salutary objective of guaranteeing an independent and upright mechanism of justice dispensation without fear or favour, by treating all alike. 81. The judicially propounded propositions on the aspects of essentiality and justifiability for assignment of further investigation or reinvestigation to an independent investigating agency like the CBI, whether or not the probe into a criminal offence by the local/state police is pending or completed, irrespective of as well, the pendency of the resultant trial have concretized over the years, applicability whereof however is contingent on the factual setting involved and the desideratum for vigilant, sensitised and even-handed justice to the parties.. 85. As succinctly summarised by this Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Right (supra), the extra ordinary power of the Constitutional Courts in directing the CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, when it is necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. In our comprehension, each of the determinants is consummate and independent by itself to justify the exercise of such power and is not inter-dependent on each other. 87. Any criminal offence is one against the society at large casting an onerous responsibility on the state, as the guardian and purveyor of human rights and protector of law to discharge its sacrosanct role responsibly and committedly, always accountable to the law abiding citizenry for any lapse. The power of the constitutional courts to direct further investigation or reinvestigation is a dynamic component of its jurisdiction to exercise judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution and though has to be exercised with due care and caution and informed with self imposed restraint, the plentitude and content thereof can neither be enervated nor moderated by any legislation. 92. That the pre-eminence of truth is the guiding star in a judicial process forming the foundation of justice had been aptly propounded by this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira. 92. That the pre-eminence of truth is the guiding star in a judicial process forming the foundation of justice had been aptly propounded by this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira. It was ruled that the entire judicial system had been created only to discern and find out the real truth and that the Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the same. Emphasising that the quest for truth is the mandate of law and indeed the bounden duty of the courts, it was observed that the justice system will acquire credibility only when the people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. While referring with approval, the revealing observation made in Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. that every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest, the following passage of Lord Denning scripted in Jones v. National Coal Board was extracted in affirmation". 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has also taken note of a situation wherein interested or influential persons are involved and has accordingly, made the following observations in Para-88 & 89 of the Judgment: "88... The expression "fair and proper investigation" in criminal jurisprudence was held by this Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali to encompass two imperatives; firstly the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law and secondly, the entire emphasis has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction.." 89. Prior thereto, in the same vein, it was ruled in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and others vs. State of Karnataka that the basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper investigation, in accordance with law and to ensure that the guilty are punished. It held further that the jurisdiction of a court to ensure fair and proper investigation in an adversarial system of criminal administration is of a higher degree than in an inquisitorial system and it has to take precaution that interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or hijack the investigation, so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders, escaping the punitive course of law. Any lapse, it was proclaimed, would result in error of jurisdiction". 27. Any lapse, it was proclaimed, would result in error of jurisdiction". 27. As discussed above, the examination of the pleadings and materials before this Court rendered by way of an affidavit brings this Court to a conclusion that the investigation done in the case, to say the least is absolute improper and has been done in an unfair, partial and unethical manner which is for obvious reason. The materials before this Court which have been discussed above would prima facie make out a case for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to make further/proper investigation into the gamut of the matter starting from October, 2009 when the deceased Inder Singh Dell started receiving threatening calls, illegal transfer of the land by fabricating Sale Deeds dated 13.7.2009, Deed of Rectification dated 28.10.2009, failure to give security to the deceased in spite of direction from the Office of Hon'ble Chief Minister, Assam dated 11.12.2009 and finally the abduction and murder of Inder Singh Dell and accordingly, the aforesaid direction is issued. 28. A fair and impartial investigation is a necessary concomitant of a vibrant judicial system. It is the trust and belief of the general public which have to be reposed by the Police investigating a case, more specifically, a case like the present one which are not only sensational but rare in nature where the offence in question is shocking. Any bias or partiality in such investigation, will erode the public confidence in the system as a whole and therefore, it would be the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that such erosion of public confidence does not take place as the same would have disastrous effect and consequence on the society. 29. Consequently, it is directed that the records of the case which may be lying with the investigating agency may be transmitted to the Central Bureau of Investigation within a period of 15 days from today and if such records are submitted before the learned Court trying the matter, the learned Court should make available the said records to the CBI. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam and Shri S.C. Keyal, the learned ASG of India are requested to facilitate in handing over/taking over of the entire records of the investigation to the CBI within the time specified. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam and Shri S.C. Keyal, the learned ASG of India are requested to facilitate in handing over/taking over of the entire records of the investigation to the CBI within the time specified. The CBI on receipt of the records would start further/proper investigation immediately thereafter and bring the investigation to a logical conclusion in accordance with law. It is made clear that the basis of this direction being improper investigation due to involvement of high ranking Police Officer, the CBI would take this aspect in the matter while making the investigation. It is also clarified that the present direction is only on the basis of prima facie satisfaction of this Court and the observation made in this order shall not prejudice the investigation in any manner which has to be done independently. 30. This Court further directs that the interim orders dated 28.4.2010 and 14.5.2010 passed in the two writ petitions for maintaining status quo of the land and providing security to the family of the deceased and the petitioners are made absolute. 31. In view of the above observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of.