JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. : The case has come up before this Bench on a reference made by the learned Single Judge. The question referred for decision is quoted herein-below: "Whether a person can be arrested and detained in judicial custody by way of remand or otherwise in respect of the offence punishable under chapter IV of the N.D.P.S. Act, without registering a case as required under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, and pending the filing of a complaint by the duty Authorised Officer, as contemplated by Section 36- A(l)(d) of the Act" 2. These are the facts, briefly stated : The petitioner had been arrested on August 10,1998 near the post office Kullu by Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh when he was alleged to have been found in possession of 2.5 gms. Cocaine. The petitioner is presently lodged in judicial custody. On the petitioners applying for enlargement on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code here in after), the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts, at Kullu dismissed his application on 2.9.1998. The petitioner has approached this Court again under Section 439 of the Code for grant of bail and setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. During the course of the hearing of the bail application the learned Single Judge felt that the question referred to above was of vital and far reaching importance and since it was likely to arise in a number of such cases especially the fact that the foreigner is involved in the case, it was desirable that it be answered by a larger Bench. Hence the matter is before us for answering the reference. 4. Before we appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel on both, sides, it is necessary to understand the scheme of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). The Act is divided into six Chapters containing 83 Sections. Chapter-II entitled Authorities and officers empowers the Central as well as the State Government to make appointments of certain officers, etc. for the purposes of the Act. Chapter -IV defines the offences punishable under the Act and prescribes the penalties therefore. The Act is divided into six Chapters containing 83 Sections. Chapter-II entitled Authorities and officers empowers the Central as well as the State Government to make appointments of certain officers, etc. for the purposes of the Act. Chapter -IV defines the offences punishable under the Act and prescribes the penalties therefore. Special Courts are envisaged by Section 36 and Section 36-A for the trial of offences punishable under the Act Every offence punishable under the Act is made cognisable by virtue of Section 37, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Code. Then comes Chapter-V which outlines the procedure to be followed by the officers appointed for the implementation of the various provisions of the Act. Sub- section (1) of Section 41 empowers a Metropolitan magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class or any Magistrate of the second class, specially empowered, to issue a warrant for the arrest of any person suspected of having committed any offence punishable under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and for the search of premises, conveyance or place in which such person is suspected of having kept or concealed any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Sections 41(2), 42,43 and 44 confer on officers named under the Act the powers of arrest, search and seizure without any order or warrant from the concerned Magistrate. Section 51 provides that all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made shall be governed by the provisions of the Code unless such provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act 5. Section 53 which we consider to reproduce at mis stage reads as under: "53. Power to invest officers of certain departments with powers of an officer- in-charge of a police station. Section 53 which we consider to reproduce at mis stage reads as under: "53. Power to invest officers of certain departments with powers of an officer- in-charge of a police station. - (1) The Central Government, after consultation with the State Government, may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, invest any officer of the department of central excise, narcotic, customs revenue intelligence or Border Security Force or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer -in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under mis Act (2) The State Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, invest any officer of the department of drugs control, revenue or excise or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer-in- charge of a police station for the investigation of offences under this Act." 6. Section 57 enjoins upon any officer making an arrest or effecting seizure under the Act to make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure. 7. From reading of Section S3 of the Act it would appear that the Central Government and the State Government are competent to invest the officers appointed under the Act with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station. Once the investment of the powers is made, these officers will be competent to exercise the powers exercisable by an officer-in-charge of a police station but thereby they will act become police officers themselves. By virtue of Section 51 of the Act, the provisions of the Code shall apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under the Act. Admittedly, the term investigation is not defined by the Act, the definition thereof found in section 2(h) of the Code must be invoked in view of Section 2(xxix) of the Act which in terms states that the words and expressions used in the Act but not defined will carry the meaning assigned to them, if defined in the Code. Section 2(h) of the Code, which defines "investigation" by an inclusive definition means all proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Section 2(h) of the Code, which defines "investigation" by an inclusive definition means all proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Under Section 4(2) of the Code all offences under any other law have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code. However, according to a section 5, nothing contained in the Code shall, unless otherwise provided, affect any special or local law or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. The power to investigate is tote found in Chapter XII of the Code which begins with Section 154 and ends with Section 176. The scheme of this chapter is that the law can be set in motion in regard to a cognizable offence on receipt of information, written or oral, by the officer-in-charge of a police station. Once such information is received and registered, Section 156 empowers any office -in-charge of the police station to investigate the same without any Magisterial order. The investigation which so commences must be concluded, Without unnecessary delay, by the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Code to the concerned Magistrate in the prescribed from. Any person on whom power to investigate under Chapter XII is conferred can be said to be a police officer, no matter by what name he is called. The important attribute of police power is not only die power to investigate into the commission of cognizable offence but also the power to prosecute the offender by filing a report or a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code. 8. Mr. M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner argued mat since the Act does not prescribed the procedure for investigation, the officers invested with the powers under Section 53 of the Act must necessarily resort to the procedure under Chapter-XH of the Code which would require them to culminate the investigation by submitting a report under Section 173 of the Code. This submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India & Ors., 1990 Supreme Court Cases 409. This submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India & Ors., 1990 Supreme Court Cases 409. In that case it had been held that die provisions found in Chapter V of the Act show that there is nothing in the Act0 to indicate that all powers under Chapter-XII of the Code, including the power to file a report under Section 173 of the Code, have been expressly conferred (sic) of a police station under Section S3, for the purpose of investigation of offences under die Act Further the Honble Judges went on to say that any person on whom power to investigate under Chapter-XII is conferred could be said to be a Police Officer’ no matter by what name he is called. The nomenclature is not important, the content of the power he exercises is die determinative factor. We find that there is nothing in the provisions of die Act to show mat the legislature desired to vest in the officers appointed under Section S3 of the Act, all die powers of Chapter-XII, including die power to submit a police report under Section 173 of die Code. But die issue is placed beyond die shadow of doubt by sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of die .Act which begins with non-obstante clause, notwithstanding anything contained in die Code and proceeds to say in clause (d) as under :- "36-A(d). A Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in this behalf, take cognizance of that offence without die accused being committed it for trial." 9. According to Section 4 of Sub-section (2) of me Code, offences under other laws may also be investigated, inquired into and tried according to die provisions of die Code. This is, however, subject to die provisions of die Special Act Thus, if a special enactment prescribes a different procedure of investigation and trial die said procedure will be followed and not die procedure prescribed by die Code. Section 52(3) requires the arrested person to be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station-or an officer empowered under Section S3. Section 52(3) requires the arrested person to be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station-or an officer empowered under Section S3. A perusal of die various provisions of die Act shows that it is a complete Code relating to die offences under die Act. For this reason also, in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 4, Chapter XII of die Code will not be applicable to die present case. 10. In Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1748, Section 21 came up for interpretation before their Lordships in respect of Central Excise Officers appointed under the provisions of die Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. It reads as under:- "21 (1). When any person is forwarded under Sec. 19 to a Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate, die Central Excise Officer shall proceed to inquire into me charge against him. (2) For this purpose, die Central Excise Officer may exercise die same powers and shall be subject to die same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police station has when investigating a cognizable case . 11. Negativing die plea, their Lordships observed thus It is true that sub-section (2) confers on die Central Officer under die Act me same powers as an officer-in-charge of aprolice station has when investigating a cognizable case; cognizable case; but this power is conferred for die purpose of sub-section (1) which gives power to a Central Excise Officer to whom any arrested person is forwarded to inquiry into die charge against him. Thus, under section 21 it is the duty of the Central Excise Officer to whom an arrested person is forwarded to inquire into the charge made against such person .It does not, however, appear that a Central Excise Officer under die Act has power to submit charge-sheet under section 173 of die Criminal Procedure Code. Under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence either (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer, or (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion mat such offence has been committed. A Police officer for purposes of clause (b) above, can in our opinion only be a police officer properly so-called as the Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure show and it seems, therefore, that Central Excise Officer will have to make a complaint under clause (a) above if he wants the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence, for example, under section (sic) of the Act .In Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 940, the Bench of Five Honble Judges of the Supreme Court held : the test for determining whether an officer of customs is to be deemed a police officer qua investigation of a offence, including the power to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not claimed that a Customs Officer exercising power to make an enquiry may submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 12. In Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras, AIR 1970 SC 1065, the same Bench was required to consider if Customs Officials under the Customs Act, 1962 were police officers within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. The Apex Court referred to earlier decisions rendered by it and finally approved the test laid down in Badku Jotis case (supra) and reiterated in Romesh Chandra Mehtas case (supra). 13. We have noticed that under Section 37 every offence under the Act is cognizable. Clause (d) of Section 36-A of the Act makes it clear that if the investigation is conducted by the police, it would conclude in a police report but if the investigation is made by an officer of any other department including the Narcotic Control Bureau, the Special Court would take cognizance of the offence upon a formal complaint made by such authorised officer of the concerned Government. This clause in our view clinches the matter. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that all the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code cannot be attracted in respect of narcotics offences investigated by authorized officers of customs, excise and other departments and such authorized officers are not police officers and they have no power to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code. 15. 15. In Director of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan & Anr:, 1994(3) Supreme Court Cases 440, the question before the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court was whether a Magistrate before whom a person arrested under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 which is para materia with sub-section (1) of Section 104 of the Customs Act of 1962, is produced under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, has jurisdiction to authorise detention of that person under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Honble Judges held that sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 167 are squarely applicable with regard to the production and detention of a person arrested under the provisions of Section 35 of FERA and Section 104 of the Customs Act. The Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 167(2) to authorise detention of a person arrested by any authorized officer of the Enforcement under FERA and taken to the Magistrate in compliance of Section 35(2) of FERA. It was further held that to invoke Section 167(1), it is not an indispensable pre- requisite condition that in all circumstances, arrest should, have been effected only by a police officer and none else and that there must necessarily be records of entries of a case diary Therefore, it necessarily follows that mere production of an arrestee before a competent Magistrate by an authorized officer or an officer empowered to arrest before a competent Magistrate by an authorized officer or an officer empowered to arrest (notwithstanding the fact that he is not a police officer in its stric to sensu) en a reasonable belief that the arrestee has been guilty of an-offence punishable under the provisions of the Act is sufficient-for the Magistrate to take that person into his custody on his being satisfied of the three preliminary conditions, namely (1) the arresting officer is legally competent to make the arrest; (2) that the particulars of the offence or the accusation for which the person is arrested or other grounds for such arrest do exist and are well-founded; and (3) that the provisions of the special Act is in regard or the arrest of the persons and the production of the arrestee serve the purpose of Section 167(1) of the Code. Further, observations were that though an authorized officer of Enforcement or Customs is not undertaking an investigation as contemplated under Chapter XII of the Code, yet those officers are enjoying some analogous powers such as arrest, seizure, interrogation etc. Besides, a statutory duty is enjoined on them to inform the arrestee of the grounds for such arrest as contemplated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code. Therefore,, they have necessarily to make records of their statutory functions showing the lame of the informant or the manner of receipt of information, as well as the name of the person who violated any other provision of the Code and who was been guilty of an offence punishable under the Act, nature of information received by them, time of the arrest, seizure of the contraband if any and the statements recorded during he course of the detection of the offence/offences. The Honble Judge further went to say that the police after consummation of the investigation files a report under Section 173 of the Code upon which the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence disclosed in the report under Section 190(l)(b) of the Code whereas the empowered or authorized officer of the special Acts has to file only complaint of facts constituting any offence under the provisions of the Act on the receipt of which the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(l)(a) of the Code. After taking cognizance of the offence either upon a police report or upon receiving a complaint of facts, the Magistrate has to proceed with the case as per the procedure prescribed under the Special Acts. Therefore, the word investigation cannot be limited only to police investigation but on the other hand, the said word is of such wider connotation and flexible so as to include the investigation carried on by any agency whether he be a police officer or empowered or authorized officer or a person not being a police officer under the direction of a Magistrate to make an investigation vested with the power of investigation. 16. 16. After analysing the provisions of the Act and the Code and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court discussed hereinabove, we answer the reference as follows :- (A) Authorized officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau appointed under \ Section 42 of the Act is not invested with the powers of Police Officer under Section S3 of die Act for the purposes of investigating the offences under the Act and without lodging the First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such officer can proceed to investigate the offence under the Act He is authorized to enter into and search any building, conveyance or place, seize die drugs or substance and arrest the accused without warrant or authorisation under Section 42 of the Act (B)A Special Court trying the offences under the Act may take cognizance of the offence upon a perusal of the police report of the facts constituting an offence under die Act submitted by die police officer after completion of die investigation under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereas empowered or authorized officer of die Act has to file and a complaint of facts constituting any offence under die provisions of Section 3 6-A (l)(d)of the Act. (C) The Magistrate has the jurisdiction under, Section 167(2) of die Code of Criminal Procedure to authorise detention of me petitioner arrested by an authorised officer of Narcotic Control Bureau in compliance of Section 36- A(h) of die Act. 17. It remains only to express our gratitude to Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General, Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned counsel and Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for their able assistance they rendered to us in this matter. . 18. The application is sent back to me learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.