P. K. Deb and J JJ.

1. The petitioner in this case has been impleaded as an accused in G. R. No.2005 of 1993 arising out of bistupur P. S. case No.346 dated 14-10-93 under Sec.302, 120-B of the I. P. C. read with Sec.27 of the Arms Act. The case relates to a case wherein V. G. Gopal, union leader was killed in a ghastly manner. The information was lodged by the driver of B. G. Gopal, namely, Prabhu Charan. He gave a detailed statement as to how V. G. Gopal was killed by gun fire.

2. The petitioner in the case happens to be the political leader and it is alleged that he was also running a parallel union and was opposing the deceased and as such suspicion was there against him also.

3. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet on 5-1-94 against five accused person, namely, Kartik ghosh, Surya Kant Patel, Ranjan ahuja, Gouri Shankar Prasad Sinha and ratan Ghosh, and in that chargesheet, it was mentioned specifically that no materials could be found against the other suspected accused persons including the petitioner. While taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 302 and 120b of I. P. C. , process were issued against the five accused persons who were chargesheeted. In that order, the remarks made by the Investigating officer about suspected accused persons were also mentioned. On 30-4-94, a supplementary chargesheet alongwith supplementary case diary was submitted by the police and in that supplementary chargesheet, the petitioner was also mentioned as an accused person. It was mentioned in that supplementary chargesheet that against the petitioner, chargesheet was submitted on the basis of the direction given by the Supdt. of Police.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no material against the petitioner and on further investigation also, nothing could be found against the petitioner except that what was there against him on earlier occasion, but the learned court below accepted that supplementary chargesheet and took cognizance and ordered for insuance of process against the petitioner also. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned court below while acting on the firstchargesheet on 7-l-94,had already mentioned that no sufficient material could be found against the petitioner on the material submitted alongwith chargesheet then how he could get sufficient material on the subsequent chargesheet when there is no new material revealed.

5. During the course of proceeding in this application, Mr. S. N. Sinha appearing for the State has submitted that no material could be found against the petitioner in the supplementary case diary except that on direction of Supdt. of Police, supplementary chargesheet was submitted againt the petitioner. So, supdtof Police was made a party in the case and was asked to submit an affidavit in the case.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Supdt. of Police, he has taken the plea of ignorance of any chargesheet being file dealer than on 30-4-94. According to the Supdt. of Police, the case being a sensational one it was special reported case and when the name of the petitioner appeared as a suspect one in the F. I. R. and when circumstances revealed that the might have hands in the murder, he directed on supervision to submit chargesheet against the petitioner also. This counter affidavit seems to be a evasive one and did not disclose as to how the materials could be found in the supervision when the case diary did not reveal so. In such sort of cases, there is little scope of the court no interfere with the investigation and cognizance when there is ample scope of the petitioner to raise his grievances before the court taking cognizance while the charges are to be framed in the case, but there are some more revealing factors in the case. It is found that before supplementary, chargesheet was submitted, by a notification the investigation of the case was already made over to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the month of March, 1995, and it app