Advocates:
D. N. GOBURDHANP. PARMESWARAN

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 476 of 2002

PETITIONER:

MOTI LAL

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/2002

BENCH:

M.B. Shah & B.N. Agrawal

JUDGMENT:

Shah, J.

Leave granted.

The short question involved in this appeal iswhether 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.

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.

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.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

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.

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