2002(3) Supreme 254
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
M.B. Shah and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Moti Lal -Appellant
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1741 of 2001)
Decided on 9-4-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : D.N. Goburdhan, Pramod Dulu, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, A.D.N. Rao, A. Mariarputham, Advocate for P. Parmeshwaran, Advocate/Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Praveen Swarup, Advocate for Pramod Swarup, Advocate.
Held : Admittedly, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act, notification dated 24.1.1996 was issued by the Central Government specifying that offences punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Act could be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Thereafter, the State of U.P. has issued the Notification, as required under Section 6 of the Act wherein it has been stated that the State of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to accord the consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the investigation of the Offence(s) punishable relating to the seizure of skin of Tiger and Leopard under Schedule 1 of the Wild Life Act, namely, case Crime No. 915/99 under Sections 9/39(3), 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 58 of the Wild Life Act and also case Crime No. 11/2000 under Section 429/379/411 IPC and Section 49B/51 of the Wild Life Act and also under Section 10/15 of the Animal Cruelty Act. Subsequently, the Central Government had issued a Notification, as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act empowering members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigating the aforesaid cases. In view of the Notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act and the Notification issued by the State of U.P. according consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate the offences. ......the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the CBI does not have jurisdiction to investigate the matter is without any substance. (Para 6)
(ii) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972-Sections 50 & 55-Power of entry, Search, arrest and detention and cognizance of offences-Cr.P.C. 1973 -Section 4(2)-Trial of offences under IPC and other laws-Whether CBI is entitled to file criminal complaints against the appellant? (Yes) (Para 8) whether Police Officers are entitled to investigate the case under Wild Life Act & IPC ? (Yes) (Paras 9 & 10)-Whether in this connection Wild Life Act would prevail over Section 4(2) of Cr.P.C.? (No) (Para 11)-CBI v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 9 SCC 735 distinguished (Paras 12 & 13)-Whether Section 50 of Wild Life Act is complete Code? (No) (Para 14)-Result-Appeal dismissed.
Held : In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 50 of the Wild Life Act is complete code, and therefore, CBI would have no jurisdiction to investigate the offences under the said Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the judgment and order passed by the High Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant is in any way illegal or erroneous. In the result, appeal is dismissed. (Paras 14 & 15)
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.-Leave granted.
2. The short question involved in this appeal is - whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was authorised to investigate an offence, which is punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Wild Life Act ) as is contended that the said Act is a self contained Code ? Before deciding the said question we would narrate brief facts of the case.
3. The appellant, who is resident of Delhi, was arrested in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39(3), 44, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Wild Life Act. It is alleged that the officers of the Sales Tax Department conducted checking of a truck at Mohan Nagar barrier in District Ghaziabad on the night of 18th /19th December, 1999 and a bundle of cotton cloth was found therein, which according to the documents, was being transported from Delhi to Siliguri. On opening the bundle, it was found that it contained 50 skins of leopard, 3 skins of tiger and 5 skins of jungle fox. On receipt of the said information, officers of the Forest Department, Ghaziabad arrived on the spot and seized the skins of animals under Section 50 of the Wild Life Act. Driver and the conductor of the truck were taken into custody and thereafter FIR was lodged and the case was registered as Crime No. 915 of 1999 under the Wild Life Act. By notification dated 21st March, 2000 issued by the Central Government, the investigation of the case was subsequently transferred to Delhi Special Police Establishment.
4. The order passed by the Central Government transferring the investigation to Delhi Special Police Establishment was challenged by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6830 of 2000 before the High Court of Allahabad with the prayer that the appellant be released forthwith. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th February, 2001, rejected the said petition. Hence, this appeal.
5. At the time of hearing of this matter, Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Wild Life Act is a special law as understood under Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and it contains comprehensive provisions for investigation, inquiry, search, seizure, compounding of offences, trial and punishment and, therefore, the Police Force Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was not empowered to investigate the case. He also submitted that under the Act jurisdiction of the Special Police Force is limited in relation to the investigation of offences within the Union Territories as specified in the Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1996) 9 SCC 735]. As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that before transferring the investigation, the Central Government has issued Notification, as required under Section 5 of the Act and the State of U.P. has also issued necessary consent order, as required under Section 6 of the said Act. Hence, the CBI is having jurisdiction to investigate the offence.
6. For appreciating the said contentions, we would refer to relevant parts of Sections 3, 5(1) and 6 of the Act which read as under:-
"3. Offences to be investigated by special police establishment.-The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police establishment to other areas.-
(1) The Central Government may by order extend to any area (including Railway areas), in a State, not being a Union Territory the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of off
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.