G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE officers of Sals Tax Department conducted checking of a truck bearing No. DL-1-G-7901 at the Mohan Nagar barrier in district Ghaziabad in the night of 18th/19th Dec. 1999 and a bundle of cotton cloth was found there in 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. Information about the articles was sent to officers of Forest Department, Ghaziabad who arrived on the spot and seized the skin of animals under Section 50 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Pratap Chandra and Pappu Singh, driver and conductor respectively, of the truck were taken into custody. Thereafter Sewa Singh, Forester, lodged a F. I. R. at 23. 15 hours on 19-12-1999 and on the basis of the same a case was registered as crime No. 915 of 1999 under Sections 9, 39 (3), 44, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Act at P. S. Sahibabad. The investigation of the case was subsequenlty transferred to Delhi Special Police Establishment by the order of the Central Government dated 21-3-2000. The petitioner Moti Lal, who is resident of Delhi, was thereafter arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 18-9-2000. The present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the investigation of the case being carried on by Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent No. 1) as against the petition be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith in the aforesaid case. ( 2 ) THE principal submission of S/sri Sidhartha Luthra and Sharad Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Central Bureau of Investigation has no authority to investigate an offence which is punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as it is a self-contained Code and neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short D. S. P. E. Act) empower investigation of such an offence by any outside agency except the one provided under the said Act. Sri Girdhar Nath, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Wild Life (Protection) Act is not a self-contained Code providing for all matters relating to investigation, enquiry or trial of offences under the said Act and, therefore, the Central Bureau of Investigation which has been constituted under D. S. P. E. Act has the authority to investigate the offence in question. ( 3 ) SECTION 3 of D. S. P. E. Act empowers the Central Government to specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment by issuing a notification to that effect. Section 5 of the same Act empowers the Central Government to extend to any area including Railway areas in a State, not being Union Territory, the powers and jurisdiction of members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under Section 3 and when such an order is made, a member thereof may discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of a police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force. Section 6 requires the consent of the State Government to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in an area which is in a State. The Central Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the D. S. P. E. Act on 24-1-1996 whereunder Delhi Special Police Establishment has been empowered to investigate the offences punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and also attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the aforesaid offence and any other offence or offences committed in the course of same transaction. The Government of Uttar Pradesh accorded consent under Section 6 of D. S. P. E. Act for the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the investigation of the offences punishable relating to the seizure of skins of tiger and leopards, which has been registered as case crime No. 915 of 1999 under Sections 9, 39, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Wild Life (Protection ) Act at P. S. Sahibabad district Ghaziabad by issuing a notification to that effect on 19-2-2000. Thereafter, thecentral Government exercising power under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of D. S. P. E. Act extended the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of U. P. for investigation of case crime No. 915 of 2000 of P. S. Sahibabad by issuing a notification to that effect on 21-3-2000. Copies of these notifications have been filed as Annexures CA-3, CA-4 and CA-5 to the counter-affidavit. These notifications show that the Central Bureau of Investigation is empowered to investigate an offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection ) Act and its powers have been extended for investigating the offence in question namely, case crime No. 915 of 1999 of P. S. Sahibabad district Ghaziabad. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 4, Cr. P. C. lays down that all offences under I. P. C. shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of Code and sub-section (2) thereof provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions but this is subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner and place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5, Cr. P. C. is in the nature of exception to Section 4 and it provides that in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary nothing contained in the Code shall 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 in force. P. C. is in the nature of exception to Section 4 and it provides that in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary nothing contained in the Code shall 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 in force. Learned counsel has elaborated his argument by submitting that the Wild Life (Protection) Act is a special law and, therefore, it will override the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and also the D. S. P. E. Act and, consequently, it is only the authority provided under the said Act which can investigate the offence. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to Sections 50, 54, and 55 of the Act and has urged on their basis that no police officer can investigate an offence under the Act. ( 5 ) THE question which requires consideration is whether the Wild Life (Protection) Act makes a complete provision for investigation so that it may be treated to be a special Act for the purpose of Section 5 of Code of Criminal Procedure which may have the effect of excluding the applicability of D. S. P. E. Act notwithstanding the notification to that effect having been issued under Section 3 of the Act on 24-1-1996 by which Delhi Special Police Establishment has been empowered to investigate an offence under Section 51 of the Act. Section 50, 54, and 55 of the Act find place in Chapter VI which as the heading shows deals with Prevention and Detection of Offences. Sub-section (3a) of Section 50 provides that any officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden, who, or whose subordinate, has seized any captive animal or wild animal under clause (c) of sub-section (1) may give the same for custody on the execution by any person of a bond for the production of such animal if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the serizure has been made. This sub-section only enables an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden to give the custody, on execution of a bond, of any captive animal or wild animal, which has been seized under clause (c) of sub-section (1), to any person for production of such animal before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence if and when so required. The animal which has been seized cannot be left just as it is and some arrangement for its custody has to be made and, therefore, such a power has been conferred on the authorities under the Act. Sub-section (6) (a) empowers the Assistant Director or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer to arrange for sale and to deal with proceeds of such sale where any meat, uncured trophy, specified plant or part or derivative thereof is seized under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 50. The articles specified in this sub-section are such which may require immediate arrangement for disposal and, therefore, such a power has been conferred on the authorities under the Act or the officers authorised by them. Sub-section (8) of Section 50 confers power on an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of the Act, to (a) issue a search warrant, (b) enforce the attendance of witnesses; (c) compel the discovery and production of documents and material objects; and (d) receive and record evidence. Thepower to issue a search warrant under clause (a) is similar to that conferred upon Magistrates of Ist Class and courts under Section 93 to 98, Cr. P. C. The power to compel discovery and production of documents under clause (c) appears to be somewhat akin to the power of the Court as contemplated by Order 11 of Civil Procedure Code. The power conferred by clause (b) and (d), namely, to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to receive and record evidence is generally conferred on the Courts while trying regular cases or on tribunals holding quasi-judicial proceedings. It is noteworthy that sub-section (8) starts with non-obstentive clause and it confers some powers on an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden like a Court or tribunal for the purpose of making investigation into any offence against any provision of the Act. It is noteworthy that sub-section (8) starts with non-obstentive clause and it confers some powers on an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden like a Court or tribunal for the purpose of making investigation into any offence against any provision of the Act. Such kind of powers are normally not exercised by an investigating agency like a police officer. However, this sub-section does not show that any exclusive power of investigation has been conferred upon Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden. Sub-section (9) lays down that any evidence recorded under clause (d) of sub-section (8) shall be admissible in any subsequent trial before a Magistrate provided that it has been taken in the presence of accused persons. A member of police force or a member of Delhi Special Police Establishment has no power to record evidence nor any statement made before it is admissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act except to the limitted extent provided by Section 27 of the said Act. However, sub-section (9) makes such evidence admissible. This is in the nature of a special provision in the Act where the Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden have been empowered to receive and record evidence and such evidence is admissible in a trial before the Magistrate provided it has been taken in the presence of the accused persons but this sub-section cannot lead to an inference that any exclusive power of investigation has been conferred upon the officers or authorities under the Act. Coming to Section 54 which provides that by a notification the Central Government, may, empower the Director of Wild Life Preservation or other officer and the State Goverment may empower the Chief Wild Life Warden or any other officer of a rank not inferior to the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forest to accept payment of a sum of money from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offence against the Act by way of commition of the offence which such person is suspected to have committed and also to release any property which has been seized and is liable to be forfitted, on payment of the value thereof. It futher provides that on payment of such money the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and the property other than Government property, if any, seized shall be released and no further proceeding in respect of an offence shall be taken against such person. This is again a special provision relating to compounding of an offence even before a Court has taken cognizance of the offence and without any order being passed by the Court Compounding of offences, is provided under Section 320, Cr. P. C. and column third of the Table thereof enumerates the person by whom the offence may be compounded. The compounding of an offence naturally presupposes existence of a victim or a person aggrieved as he alone is capable of compounding the offence. The offences under the Act are not committed against any particular individual or human being but against the Society at large or the State as it is the concern of evey one to protect the wild life and, therefore, it was necessary to specify someone who could compound the offence. This section, therefore, gives authority to the Central Government or the State Government to empower certain category of officers to compound an offence after accepting payment of a sum of money or payment of the value of the property seized. It may be noticed that power to compound an offence has been conferred at the very initial stage right from the time when a reasonable suspicion exists that a person has committed an offence against the Act or when a property has been seized which is liable to be forfeited but with that a rider if the offence is such for which a minimum period of imprisonment has been prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 51, it shall not be so compounded. This is again an additional power upon the officers who have been empowered by a notification issued whether by the Central Government or State Government to compound an offence before the matter has gone to Court and it has nothing to do with the investigation of the offence. Section 55 of the Act, reference to which has been made by the learned counsel, enumerats the category of persons on whose complaint alone the Court is empowered to take cognizance of any offence against the Act. This section is somewhat akin to Sections 195, 198 and 199 of Cr. Section 55 of the Act, reference to which has been made by the learned counsel, enumerats the category of persons on whose complaint alone the Court is empowered to take cognizance of any offence against the Act. This section is somewhat akin to Sections 195, 198 and 199 of Cr. P. C. where the Court is debarred from taking cognizance of an offence except on the complaint made by the persons specified in the aforesaid sections. The requirement regarding filing of a complaint by specified persons alone does not come within the domain of investigation. Therefore, the provisions of the Act do not at all show that it is a special Act providing comprehensively for investigation of offences under the Act which may come within the purview of Section 5, Cr. P. C. and exclude the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate any offence under the Act. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 25 : ( AIR 1977 SC 1177 ) and Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 9 SCC 735 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2402 ) and has urged on their basis that the Central Bureau of Investigation has no power to investigate an offence under the Act. We do not think that there is any such observation in Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar, ( AIR 1977 SC 1177 ) (supra), which may be of any assistance to the petitioner. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1996 SC 2402 ) (supra), the Court placed reliance on Nilratan Sircar v. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas, AIR 1965 SC 1 , wherein it was held that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 is a special Act as Section 19-A thereof provides for the necessary investigation into the alleged suspected commission of offence under the said Act, by the Director of Enforcement and the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to such investigation by him. After analysing the provisions of FERA, it was held as under in para 28 of the report. :-". . . But FERA is a self-contained code containing comprehensive provisions of investigation, inquiry and trial for the offences under that Act. After analysing the provisions of FERA, it was held as under in para 28 of the report. :-". . . But FERA is a self-contained code containing comprehensive provisions of investigation, inquiry and trial for the offences under that Act. The provisions under FERA gives power to the office of the Directorate of Enforcement or other officers duly authorised by the Central Government under FERA to search, confiscate, recover, arrest, record statements of witnesses, etc. FERA contains provisions for trial of the offences under FERA and imposition of punishment for such offences. FERA, being a special law, containing provisions for investigation, enquiry, search, seizure, trial and imposition of punishment for offences under FERA, Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in respect of offences under FERA. ( 7 ) THE analysis of the provisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not at all show that Wild Life (Protection) Act is a special law which may contain complete provisions for investigation, inquiry, search, seizure and trial and, therefore, ratio of the authority cited by the learned counsel can have no application here. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation has referred to Ishwar Das Malhotra v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 1193 and The Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurudasmal, AIR 1970 SC 1126 , which support his contention that after the necessary notifications have been issued under Section 3 and 5 of the D. S. P. E. Act, the Central Bureau of Investigation has the power to investigate the offence in question which has been registered as case crime No. 915 of 1999 at P. S. Sahibabad district Ghaziabad. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .