The legal question at hand concerns whether a police officer, who is not a designated special police officer under the relevant Act, can lawfully investigate offences under that Act. The key points to consider are as follows:

1. The Act establishes specific offences related to the suppression of immoral traffic and appoints special police officers for each designated area to handle offences under the Act (!) (!) (!) .

2. The Act confers certain powers and duties explicitly on the special police officers, including the appointment of subordinate officers and the formation of advisory bodies, to assist in the enforcement of the Act’s provisions (!) (!) .

3. The language of the Act indicates that the phrase "dealing with offences" is broad but does not explicitly include the investigation process. The Act does not explicitly grant investigation powers to the special police officers or prohibit regular police officers from investigating offences under the Act (!) (!) .

4. The general provisions of the criminal procedure code suggest that offences under other laws are to be investigated according to its provisions unless explicitly altered by the specific law. Since the Act does not specify investigation procedures or restrict regular police powers, the default statutory framework applies (!) (!) .

5. The investigation stage is distinct and fundamental, and the legislature has specifically referred to investigation, inquiry, and trial as separate stages. The absence of explicit provisions conferring investigation powers on the special police officers implies that investigation authority remains with the regular police unless expressly stated otherwise (!) (!) (!) .

6. The powers of police officers of higher rank, as provided under general law, such as exercising the powers of officers in charge of police stations, are applicable and do not exclude the authority of regular police officers to investigate offences under the Act (!) (!) .

7. The provisions of the Police Act and general criminal procedure indicate that police duties include detecting and bringing offenders to justice, which encompasses investigation activities. The absence of specific restrictions in the Act means that regular police officers retain their investigative powers unless the Act explicitly states otherwise (!) .

8. The interpretation of the phrase "dealing with offences" in the context of the Act suggests that it encompasses various functions, including investigation, unless the Act explicitly restricts such powers to the special police officers. The legislative intent appears to be that investigation powers are not exclusively vested in the special police officers (!) (!) .

9. The provisions of other related laws, like the Prevention of Corruption Act, which explicitly restrict investigation powers to certain ranks, are not directly applicable here due to differences in language and context. The Act in question does not contain such explicit restrictions (!) (!) .

10. Ultimately, the conclusion is that police officers who are not designated as special police officers under the Act have the authority to investigate offences under the Act, provided they act within the scope of their general powers under the criminal procedure code and law. The appointment of a special police officer does not preclude regular police officers from exercising investigation powers, and there is no legislative intent to restrict investigation to the special police officers alone (!) (!) .

In summary, unless the Act explicitly limits investigation powers to the special police officers, regular police officers retain their investigative authority under the general criminal procedure framework.