This application filed on behalf of the C.B.I is directed against the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the learned A.J.C, F.T.C. X, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.768 of 2009 holding therein that permission sought by the C.B.I for further investigation in terms of the provision contained in Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is never required as the C.B.I under the provision is free to submit further report to the Magistrate after collecting the evidences.

2. The backdrop of the case is that one Anita Singh submitted a written complaint on 4.7.2009 stating therein that her husband Anil Kumar Singh, Range Officer in the Department of Forest was posted at Ranchi. On the fateful day, he had gone to the office. While she was in her house, she was telephonically informed that at about 7.15 P.M. when her husband came out of the office, miscreants came on a Motor Cycle and fired at him. The Motor Cycle got dashed by the Maruti Van of her husband and the miscreant left that place leaving the Motor Cycle at the place of occurrence. When her husband was removed to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries.

3. It has been alleged that a contract for construction of building of the department had been given to a private contractor Sulochana Budhia. Since the construction was not up to the mark, payment was being not made to the contractor. The contractor and the then Principle Conservator of Forest, A.K.Singh had been pressurizing the complainant to make payment . Thus, it was alleged that under a deep conspiracy, the contractor and the higher officials of the department got her husband murdered through a contract killer. On such allegation, Doranda Police Station Case No.255 of 2009 has been registered under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet on 17.10.2009 against Bhagwan Prasad, the intervener and seven others. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions which was transferred to the court of A.J.C, F.T.C.X, Ranchi. While the court was proceeding with the trial, C.B.I through an Investigating Officer filed an application on 22.12.2009 stating therein that with the consent of the State Government, Central Government has issued a notification on 16.12.2009 in terms of Section 5 of the D.S.P.E Act to investigate Doranda P.S case no.255 of 2009 which has been registered by the C.B.I as R.C. No. 15(S)/2009-AHD-R. On such factual aspect, prayer was made to stay further proceeding of Sessions Trial No.768 of 2009. That application was rejected on 6.1.2010. The said order never seems to have been challenged by the C.B.I. Subsequently, an application was filed by the C.B.I through Inspector of Police wherein prayer was made to allow the C.B.I to take up the matter for further investigation. That prayer was rejected by the impugned order.

5. Mr.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submitted that if he same investigating agency, who had earlier investigated the case and submitted charge sheet, he can proceed with further investigation in terms of the provision of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without getting permission of the Court but if other agency takes up the matter for further investigation, permission is required to be taken by the Court and that it has been well settled that even after submission of the charge sheet, the case can be taken up for further investigation and under this situation, the Court should have permitted the C.B.I to go for further investigation, when earlier investigating agency had not investigated the case fairly as they have failed to collect adequate materials against the accused persons.

6. As against this, Mr. B.M.Tripathi, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the intervener-opposite party no.2 submitted that the trial has proceeded to a considerable extent where only few witnesses have remaine