K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 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. ( 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 has already launched a prosecution. Lest such a procedure would only expose the accused to the risk of the multiple prosecutions. I do not mean to say that whatever material collected in the course of investigation by C. B. C. I. D. Kerala which is pertinent and relevant for proving the guilt of the accused in Spl. CC No. 189/99 has to be glossed over and ignored. I do not mean to say that whatever material collected in the course of investigation by C. B. C. I. D. Kerala which is pertinent and relevant for proving the guilt of the accused in Spl. CC No. 189/99 has to be glossed over and ignored. The first respondent and C. B. C. I. D. are concurrent agencies and it is required in law that there should be a harmonious co-ordination in their activities, any additional incriminating material collected in the course of investigation by C. B. C. I. D. Kerala has to be taken note of by the first respondent and to be produced as additional material in Spl. CC No. 189/99. If need be, the first respondent in co-operation with the C. B. C. I. D. Kerala can invoke the provision of sub-section (8) of Sec. 173 and with the permission of the Court, a further investigation could be continued and further reports could be filed. However, the Court while granting such permission an opportunity should be granted to the accused and orders are to be passed in accordance with law. ( 10 ) I also find no conflict in the position of law for the police to file final report in the private complaint of Nawaz Khan filed before the Thiruvananthapuram Court. The offences mentioned in the private complaint are totally distinct and unrelated to the offence mentioned in Spl. CC 189/99. Nawaz Khan allege conspiracy and false implication in the case by the co-accused in Spl. CC 189/99. No allegations of mala fides are imputed against the first respondent. There appears to be no proper co-ordination between the Kerala Police and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. During the course of investigation of the offences alleged in the private complaint of Nawaz Khan, if the C. B. C. I. D. Kerala have tread (sic) upon any evidence relating to Spl. CC 189/99, the evidence to that extent may not be relevant for launching prosecution in the private complaint relating to the offences mentioned in the private complaint of Nawaz Khan, but evidence that is helpful for proving the guilt of the accused in Spl. CC 189/99, could be transported and processed in the legally required manner to prove the guilt of the accused in Spl. CC 189/99. ( 11 ) SRI. CC 189/99, could be transported and processed in the legally required manner to prove the guilt of the accused in Spl. CC 189/99. ( 11 ) SRI. M. T. Nanaiah submits that apart from second respondent there are other accused who have complicity with the commission of the crime in Spl. CC 189/99. If there is any such material and in the final report if those persons are to be arrayed as an accused, the trial Court could be moved for passing appropriate orders in Spl. CC No. 189/99. ( 12 ) IN view of the position of law discussed above, I find the request for staying the proceedings u/s. 210, Cr. P. C. is totally unwarranted and the reliefs prayed for in this petition are unwarranted. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) BEFORE parting, I find that strange methods are adopted by the D. R. I. in launching the prosecution in Spl. CC No. 189/99 by way of private complaint. It is not only in this case, I find in several cases, the N. C. B. or D. R. I. adopt the procedure of launching prosecution by way of private complaint u/s. 200, Cr. P. C. Although it may not be technically wrong for them to adopt the procedure but not prudent and wise to effectively conduct the prosecution. Under the provisions of Secs. 51, 52, 52a and 53 of the N. D. P. S. Act, multiple named agencies are empowered with the powers of officer of incharge of the Police Station for investigation. That being the position, it is not necessary for officers of D. R. I. empowered as S. H. O. to adopt the procedure u/s. 200, Cr. P. C. Any information received at the earliest could be communicated to the competent Magistrate as an F. I. R. and further investigation could be conducted, statements u/s. 161 (3) could be recorded. All the necessary investigations of subjecting the articles to scientific investigation could be carried out and final report u/s. 173 (2) could be filed. Such a procedure of investigation and filing final report would be to the advantage of the prosecution. In fact Section 53a gives a status of substantive value to the statements recorded by the non-police agencies and are admissible in evidence even if the witnesses turn hostile. Such a procedure of investigation and filing final report would be to the advantage of the prosecution. In fact Section 53a gives a status of substantive value to the statements recorded by the non-police agencies and are admissible in evidence even if the witnesses turn hostile. Therefore, recording of statements u/s. 161 (3) taking signature of the deponents is always to the advantage of the prosecution conducted by non-police agency u/s. 53. It is therefore the non-police agency should take note of the useful relevant legal provisions in conducting the investigation and in launching the prosecution in an effective manner. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons and discussions made above, the petition is disposed of. ( 15 ) SRI. Dinesh, Senior Standing Counsel makes an unconditional statement that the D. R. I. would extend fullest co-operation to the petitioner and whatever material that is produced would be legally processed and placed by way of additional investigation reports as required under law. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .