1. Heard Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Rupesh Kumar Singh and Shiv Shankar Singh who are accused in Case Crime No. 1604 of 2010 under Sections 167, 220 IPC and Case Crime No. 1605 of 2010 under Sections 21/22 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered by Anti Corruption Cell, Varanasi, at Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur with the prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Investigating Agency to duly investigate the aforesaid cases fairly and consider the materials produced by the petitioners before them. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to change the Investigating Officer and get the matter reinvestigated by giving an opportunity to the petitioners and considering the materials/ evidence produced by them before the Investigating Officer of Anti Corruption Cell, Varanasi and to pass appropriate order/direction on the application of the petitioners moved for permitting them to produce the material in support thereof before the Investigating Officer and consider the same during course of investigation.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents that the petitioners being accused have no right to have any say as regards manner and method of the investigation.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as law reports cited by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions made by them for and against the preliminary objection.

5. In support of the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Ramwati and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2001 (1) 845 (All), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the right of an accused to have any say in regard to the manner and method of the investigation has in paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 of its judgment which are being reproduced herein below held as hereunder:

"9. The F.I.R. shows that the incident took place at 5.30 p.m. on 3.5.2000 in a vegetable market. The accused are alleged to have fired from their respective weapons upon the two deceased who received firearm injuries and died on the spot. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged at 6.30 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali, which is two kilometres from the place of occurrence. Besides the first informant, names of 4 other persons are mentioned as witnesses of the incident. Prima facie, the case does not appear to be a highly complicated one and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is not possible for the local police to investigate the same. Therefore, the case does not fall within the purview of ground No. 1 mentioned in the Government Order. There is no averment in the writ petition nor there is any material to show that the case falls within the purview of grounds No. 2, 3 and 4 of the Government Order. In fact Sri U.C. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners could not point out any such fact or circumstances which may bring the case within the purview of the Government Order. A copy of the application moved by Petitioner No. 1 to the Chief Minister for transferring the investigation of the case to C.B., C.I.D. has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. What is mentioned therein is that the accused are wholly innocent and had been falsely implicated; that Ambrish Kumar accused, who is employed as clerk in a college in Niranjan Nagar was present on duty on the date of occurrence; that no witnesses of the neighbourhood had been named in the F.I.R. and all the witnesses were relations and that the local police was not co