By the Court—We have heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi on behalf of petitioner, Sri G.S. Hajela on behalf of C.B.I and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. The writ petition has been made for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to secure the investigation by C.B.I in Case Crime No. 221 of 2001 under Section 302, 395 I.P.C, Police Station Pilkhuwa, district Ghaziabad in pursuance to the Notification issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow dated February, 2004 within a period of stipulated/specific period.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the notification dated February, 2004 issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh Home (Police) Section-Ill No. 219P (1) /6-P-3/2004/15 (75)P/2001 Lucknow dated February, 2004 within stipulated period.

(c) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the present facts and circumstances of the case, (d)allow the writ petition with cost in favour of petitioner.”

3. According to the petitioner, the investigation by local police was not properly conducted which has been resulted to filing of charge-sheet in the name of persons, who are not accused according to him. However, the trial goes on and ultimately order of acquittal was passed against three named accused during the pendency of this writ petition. Out of three accused, one was already murdered. According to the petitioner herein, the application of Nitin Garg, elder brother of the petitioner made for transferring the investigation to C.B.I was dismissed by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court in view of such circumstances. However, at the stage of final hearing, the relevant questions before us is whether even after order of acquittal by the competent court of sessions, further investigation can be directed or not?

4. It is to be remembered that there are prohibition under the Constitution of India as well as Criminal Procedure Code which are as follows:

“Article 20(2): No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

Section 300 of Cr.P.C: Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence—(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.

(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220.

(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.

(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.

(5) A person discharged under Section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.

(6) Nothing in this section shal