( 1 ) SRI. Dinesh Kumar, Senior Counsel for the first respondent filed statement of objections to the petition.

( 2 ) THE entangled messy facts projects interesting questions of law relating to the propriety and jurisdiction of the petitioner to investigate the crime in question. It is not uncommon to find under the statute a concurrent jurisdiction conferred on several agencies to investigate the crimes. The N. D. P. S. Act is one such instance conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the several named authorities to investigate.

( 3 ) IN the present case, the first respondent seized 1. 75 kg. of contraband Heroine from the accused persons. After completion of investigation, a private complaint u/s. 200, Cr. P. C. is filed before the Special Judge (NDPS) cum City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, which is numbered as SPL CC 189/99.

( 4 ) ONE P. B. Nawaz Khan-Accused 2 challenged the prosecution against him alleging false implications. The Supreme Court in Cri. S. L. P. 2958/00 directed an enquiry by C. B. I. who after enquiry submitted a report showing that P. B. Nawaz Khan was innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Accordingly, the proceedings against him came to be quashed. The trial of Spl. CC 189/99 is being continued against the other accused persons. In the meantime, Nawaz Khan filed a private complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram u/s. 200, Cr. P. C. in M. P. No. Nil/99 against the second respondent herein and 4 other accused persons alleging conspiracy on their part to falsely implicate him in Spl. CC 189/99 and alleged commission of offences punishable u/ss. 195, 196, 201, 211 and 120b and 307 r/w. Sec. 511, IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation to S. HO. of Voliyyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

( 5 ) THE CBCID of Kerala Police took over the investigation. In the course of investigation much light is thrown upon the guilt of the second respondent herein and the complicity of the other accused persons who are arrayed as accused in Spl. CC 189/99.

( 6 ) IT is said that incriminating material collected by CBCID, Kerala is very much relevant for prosecution in Spl. CC 189/99 on the file of Special Court at Bangalore. Therefore, CBCID, Kerala approached the Special Court at Bangalore for staying the proceedings in Spl. CC 189/99 on the ground that the investigation conducted by them is yet to be concluded.

( 7 ) THE Special Judge, Bangalore, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, present petition is filed for setting aside the impugned order and also to set aside the proceedings in Spl. CC No. 189/99. Further requests for permission to investigate into the crime.

( 8 ) HEARD Sri. M. T. Nanaiah, the Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Dinesh, Senior Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Sri. P. P. Joy for respondent No. 2 at length. Apart from the questions that are raised by the parties several important relevant legal questions arise for consideration in determination of this case.

( 9 ) THE provisions of Sec. 53 of the N. D. P. S. Act gives concurrent jurisdiction to several named authorities to conduct investigation and to launch prosecution in respect of offence committed under the N. D. P. S. Act. In this case in respect of the offence in question the first respondent took notice of the same and after investigation launched a prosecution by a private complaint, it cannot be said that the C. B. C. I. D. has no jurisdiction at all to investigate into the crimes committed under the N. D. P. S. Act but in respect of the offence in question, the investigation is already completed and prosecution is launched before a competent jurisdictional Court by the first respondent. The rules of discipline governing the investigation do not permit the other concurrent agency to take up investigation in respect of the same crime to launch a separate prosecution against the accused when the other competent agency