IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26695 of 2006(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SULAIMAN KUNJU, THEKKEVILA VEEDU, MEVARAM, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691 020. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOLLAM. 3. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT,COCHIN. 4. SRI. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. SULAIMAN KUNJU, KALLARIKATHU THATTARKONAMCHERI, P.O.THATTARKONAM, THRIKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM-5. 5. SMT. BEEVI KUNJU, W/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, -DO- -DO- 6. SRI. SHAHUDHEEN, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, -DO- -DO- 7. SRI. JAPAMANI, AMBADI PUTHEN VEEDU, THRIKOVILVATTOM, THARKONAM, KOLLAM-5. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.S.HRITWIK R3 BY ADV. SRI. M.V.S. NAMBOOTHIRY, SC, CBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.C.NO.26695 OF 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of November, 2006. ORDER After discussions at the Bar, it is fairly conceded as has pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the C.B.I in the light of the decision in Antony Scaria v. State of Kerala [2001(2) KLT 93] that further investigation cannot be directed to be conducted by any agency different from the agency which had conducted the original investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.Ramkumar now submits that no meaningful investigation has been conducted by the 2nd respondent who has sought permission of the Court to conduct further investigation, which prayer was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am satisfied that the 2nd respondent must be directed to file a statement showing the steps that have been taken after the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed Ext.P1 order dt.05.08.2006. This is necessary to ascertain whether there is merit in the contention that the 2nd respondent has not conducted any meaningful further investigation after Ext.P1 2 order. The learned Government Pleader shall get the 2nd respondent to file a statement showing all the relevant details within a period of 30 days from this date. Call on 02.01.2007. R.BASANT JUDGE rtr/