MOTI LAL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 09-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MOTi LAL 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. 
APRIL 9, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Sections 3, 5, 6, 9, 39(3), 44, 49, 50, 
57 and 58. 
A 
B 
Accused charged with offence of keeping skins of wild animals-Transfer C 
of the case-Notification by Central Government-Consent Order by State 
Government-Transfer of the case to Delhi Special Police Establishment-
Chal/enged Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation of the case Held, 
the Central Government under the provision of the Wild Life Act could transfer 
the case for investigation by the Delhi Special Police Establishment/Central D 
Bureau of Investigation-Cognizance of the offence could be taken as per 
special procedure prescribed under the Act-Code of Criminal Procedure; 
Section 4(2). 
Officers of Sales Tax Department conducted a search and found in one 
truck skins of wild animals hidden inside a cotton bundle. On receipt of E 
information, Officers of the Forest Department arrived and seized the skin 
of animals under Section 50 of the Wild Life Act. Driver and Conductor of 
the truck were taken into custody. FIR was lodged. The Appellant-Accused 
was arrested .in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39(3), 
44, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Act. Subsequently, the Central Government issued 
notifications transferring the investigation of the case to Delhi Special Police F 
Establishment. This was challenged by the appellant by way of a Writ Petition 
which was rejected by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that Wild Life Act is a special law 
and it contains comprehensive provisions for investigation, inquiry, search, G 
seizure, compounding of offences, trial and punishment. Therefore, the Police 
Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was not 
empowered to investigate the case. It was contended for the respondents that 
· • the investigation in the matter was transferred to Central Bureau of 
Investigation only after issuing of necessary notification by the Central 
995 
H 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A Government and consent order by the State Government. Therefore, CBI was 
\ ..
having jurisdiction to investigate the matter. 
_.. 
... 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
" 
HELD: 1.1. Admittedly, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 
B 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (Act) notification was issued 
by the Central Government specifying that offences punishable undet Section 
51 of the Wild Life Act could be investigated by the Delh~ Special Police 
Establishment. Thereafter, the State of U.P. has issued the Notification, 
.....
according its consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the 
c 
members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in investigation of the 
offences punishable relating to the seizure of skin of Tiger and Leopard under 
Schedule 1 of the Wild Life Act and also under Section 10/15 of the Animal 
Cruelty Act. Subsequently, the Central Government issued a Notification, 
empowering members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigating 
the aforesaid cases. Thus under the provision of the Act, CBI have jurisdiction 
D to investigate the matter. [999-H; 1000-A-BJ 
1.2. Central Government has issued notification under the provisions 
of clause (a) of Section 55 of the Wild Life Act, authorizing the officers of 
\-
Delhi Special Police Establishment not below the rank of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police to file complaints with regard to the offences 
E punishable under the Act in the areas-in their respective jurisdiction. 
Therefore, it cannot be said that the CBI was not entitled to file the criminal 
complaint against the appellant. The Police Officers are not excluded from 
investigating the offences under the Wild Life Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 
50 starts with a non-obstante clause that 'notwithstanding anything contained 
F 
in any other law for the time being in force' which would include the Code of 
Criminal Procedure and the Officers mentioned therein are also entitled to 
inspect, search or seize the articles mentioned in clauses (a}, (b) and (c). This 
would mean that apart from the Police Officers not below the rank of Sub-
Inspector, other officers are given special powers for the purpose of prevention 
and detection of the offence under the Act. (1002-E, G, H; lOOJ:A] 
G 
2.1. In view of specific provision under the Wild Li
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.