Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar, vide reference dated 14.6.2005, made under Section 395 of the Cr.P.C., has referred the following question to the High Court:- "Whether the Environmental Court at Faridabad or whether the Environmental Court at Hisar or Ilaqa Magistrate, District Jhajjar is competent to try the cases, committed within the jurisdiction of District Jhajjar, under the Act ?" 2. A brief narrative of the facts that have led the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar to make a reference to this Court, would be appropriate. FIR No. 191, dated 5.6.2005, under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was registered at Police Station Jhajjar. One of the accused, namely, Shashi Singh filed an application, dated 7.6.2005, for grant of anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 9.6.2005, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar dismissed the application, holding therein that powers to deal with matters, under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short herein after referred to as "the Wild Life Act"), had been conferred upon a Special Court at Faridabad, by virtue of Notification No. SO16/CA2/1974/S.14/97, dated 6.2.1997. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar, before whom some of the accused were produced, while in custody, after considering the aforementioned order, and while accepting their bail bonds and granting bail to them, framed the question, reproduced herein above and forwarded a reference to this Court. 3. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted to provide protection to wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. Section 51 of the Act provides penalties/punishments to be imposed for the commission of any offence. The State of Haryana, pursuant to exercise of powers, under Section 11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short referred to as "the Code"), and after consultation with the High Court, issued a notification, dated 6.2.1997, establishing two special Courts of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, one each at Faridabad and Hisar, to try and inquire into cases, arising within the territories of the State of Haryana, under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 . The notification sets out the local jurisdiction of these Courts. The notification sets out the local jurisdiction of these Courts. The Judicial Magistrate at Faridabad was conferred with jurisdiction to try and inquire into offences, arising within the limits of Districts Faridabad, Gurgaon, Mohindergarh, Rewari, Jind, Bhiwani and Rohtak, whereas the Judicial Magistrate at Hisar was conferred with jurisdiction to try and inquire into offences, arising within the jurisdiction of the remaining Districts i.e. Ambala, Panchkula, Kurukshetra, Kaithal, Karnal, Hisar, Sirsa, Panipat, Sonipat and Yamuna Nagar. 4. District Jhajjar was carved out from the territories of District Rohtak, pursuant to a notification dated 25.6.1997, issued under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The notification dated 6.2.1997, pursuant whereto powers to try and inquire into cases, under the Act, were conferred upon Judicial Magistrates First Class of Faridabad and Hisar, was not amended to include the newly carved out District Jhajjar. A subsequent amendment of the aforementioned notification, dated 11.11.2004, whereby the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, were added to the notification dated 6.2.1997, did not include District Jhajjar in the notification dated 6.2.1997, for the purpose of inquiry or trial into offences committed, under the provisions of the Wild Life Act. 5. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, Mr. J.S. Toor, Addl. A.G. Haryana and Shri madan Pal, Advocate have rendered able assistance to this Court. 6. Mr. R.C. Cheema, Sr. Advocate contends that the failure of the Government to include District Jhajjar, in the notification dated 6.2.1997, even after it came into existence, would lead to an inference that the Government intended that case, arising, under the Wild Life Act, within District Jhajjar, would be inquired into and tried by Magistrates other than those referred to in the notification dated 6.2.1997. It is further argued that there are two species of Special Courts, one created by a special statute conferring powers upon the Special Court to inquire into and try offences arising under the special enactment, and the other, where the statute does not create any special Courts but by reason of the local jurisdiction, being conferred upon a Court, the Court exercises powers with respect to offences, committed under an enactment. Courts created by special statute would obviously exclude the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts functioning under the Code. Courts created by special statute would obviously exclude the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts functioning under the Code. However, where a special statute does not establish Courts, jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts would only be ousted, if powers to inquire and try offences, within the "local area" of their jurisdiction are conferred upon another Court by issuance of a notification to that effect u/s 11 of the Code. As the notification, under Section 11 of the Code, does not include District Jhajjar, the Magistrate at Jhajjar was vested with jurisdiction to inquire into and try offences, committed under the Wild Life Act, within the local area of his jurisdiction. 7. Counsel for the State of Haryana, as also Sh. Madan Pal, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that by virtue of Section 11 of the Code, the State Government has established two Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the First Class in the State of Haryana to inquire into and try offences, arising under the Wild Life Act. The proviso to Section 11 of the Code states that where such special Courts are established, no other Court or Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases. The notification, under Section 11 of the Code, is dated 6.2.1997. It does not refer to District Jhajjar, as District Jhajjar was created out of District Rohtak on 25.6.1997. The absence of reference to District Jhajjar in the notification would not make any difference, as the notification, under Section 11 of the Code, dated 6.2.1997, refers to District Rohtak, as it existed on 6.2.1997, i.e. including the area of District Jhajjar, which was subsequently carved out of District Rohtak and, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and not the Magistrate at Jhajjar would have exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into and try offences, under the Wild Life Act. 8. I have perused the statutory provisions, and the notifications, as also the reference order. 9. Chapter VI of the Wild Life Act, titled, Prevention and Detection of Offences, confers powers upon a Magistrate to hold a trial and impose such punishments as are set down in the Act for the commission of offences, thereunder. The Magistrate, referred to is obviously the Magistrate, within the local area of whose jurisdiction a violation of the provisions of the Wild Life Act are committed or an offence is complained of. The Magistrate, referred to is obviously the Magistrate, within the local area of whose jurisdiction a violation of the provisions of the Wild Life Act are committed or an offence is complained of. The Act, however, does not constitute any special Courts to try and inquire into offences, committed under the Act. Offences and violations under the Wild Life Act are to be inquired into and tried by a Magistrate, within the "local area" of whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. 10. Section 11 of the Code, however, empowers the State to establish as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the Ist Class and of the Second Class and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, so specify. The proviso to Section 11 of the Code empowers the State Government, after due consultation with the High Court, to establish, for any "local area", one or more special Courts of Judicial Magistrate, to try any particular case or class of cases. The proviso further states that where any such special Court of Judicial Magistrate is established, in terms of a notification, issued under Section 11 of the Code, no other Court or Magistrate, in the "local area", shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for trial of which a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established. The words `local jurisdiction are defined in Section 2(j) of the Code to mean the `local area within which the Court of a Magistrate may exercise all or any of his powers under the Code, in any part of the State, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. Thus, pursuant to powers, conferred under Section 11 of the Code, and in terms thereof, the State Government may confer powers upon a Magistrate to inquire into and try any case or class of cases, as a Special Court, within the "local area" of its jurisdiction, so notified with respect to the case or class of cases so specified. Once jurisdiction is conferred under Section 11 of the Code with respect to a case or a class of cases within a "local area", then no other Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to inquire into and try such cases or class of cases within the local area of jurisdiction, as specified in the notification, issued under Section 11 of the Code. 11. 11. In the exercise of powers, under Sections 11 and 14 of the Code, and pursuant to a notification dated 6.2.1997, the State of Haryana established two Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates Ist Class at Faridabad and Hisar to inquire into or try offences, arising and committed under the Wild Life Act. It further defined the "local area" of these Magistrates, by dividing the State of Haryana into two "local areas". The notification dated 6.2.1997 conferred powers upon the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Faridabad and Hisar to inquire into or try offences, committed under the Wild Life Act. As a consequence of the above notification, the jurisdiction of all other Magistrates to inquire into or try offences, under the Wild Life Act, stood ousted. 12. The "local area jurisdiction" of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad to inquire into and try offences, under the Wild Life Act, was extended to the territories of Districts Faridabad, Gurgaon, Mohindergarh, Rewari, Jind, Bhiwani and Rohtak, whereas the Court at Hisar is empowered to exercise jurisdiction in the remaining Districts, namely, Ambala, Panchkula, Kurukshetra, Kaithal, Karnal, Hisar, Sirsa, Panipat, Sonipat and Yamuna Nagar. The question that merits consideration is whether on account of the absence of a reference to District Jhajjar in the notification dated 6.2.1997, offences, under the Wild Life Act, would fall within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, at Faridabad or the Ilaqa Magistrate, Jhajjar. 13. On the date of issuance of notification dated 6.2.1997, the territorial limits of District Jhajjar were a part of District Rohtak. District Jhajjar was carved out from the territories of District Rohtak, vide notification dated 25.6.1997, published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary), and issued under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, read with Section 5 of the Registration Act, 1908, and thus, came to constitute a separate and distinct revenue district. After the creation of District Jhajjar, notification dated 6.2.1997 was not amended to include the territories of District Jhajjar. The absence of a reference to District Jhajjar, in the aforementioned notification, in my considered opinion, does not, in any manner, divest the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad of jurisdiction or confer jurisdiction upon the Ilaqa Magistrate of District Jhajjar to inquire into and try offences, under the Wild Life Act, arising within District Jhajjar. The absence of a reference to District Jhajjar, in the aforementioned notification, in my considered opinion, does not, in any manner, divest the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad of jurisdiction or confer jurisdiction upon the Ilaqa Magistrate of District Jhajjar to inquire into and try offences, under the Wild Life Act, arising within District Jhajjar. The notification dated 6.2.1997 delimits the "local area of jurisdiction" of the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Class, Faridabad, in terms of the territorial limited of various Districts of Haryana, as they existed on 6.2.1997. The fact that District Jhajjar was subsequently carved out from the territories of District Rohtak, in my considered opinion, would not alter the "local area" delimited by the above notification for the purpose of inquiry into and trying offences, under the Wild Life Act. 14. The notification, dated 6.2.1997 determines the `local area of jurisdiction of two Judicial Magistrates and divides the State of Haryana into two `local areas of jurisdiction, for the purpose of inquiring into and trying offences, committed under the Wild Life Act. This notification dated 6.2.1997 includes the entire territory of District Rohtak, as it existed on 6.2.1997, within the "local area" of jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. As the "local area" of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad was extended to include the area of District Rohtak, as it existed on 6.2.1997, the mere fact that District Jhajjar, was carved out from the territories of District Rohtak, after 6.2.1997 (the date of the notification, issued under Section 11 of the Code), would, in no manner, exclude the territories of District Jhajjar from the local area of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. District Jhajjar, as is apparent, came into existence, after the notification was issued, under Section 11 of the Code and, thus, for reasons that are obvious, could not find mention in the aforementioned notification. The State Government could and infact should, by a subsequent amendment, have included District Jhajjar from the operation of the notification, dated 6.2.1997. However, this exclusion cannot be construed to be an expression of intent to exclude District Jhajjar from the operation of the notification, dated 6.2.1997. There is no warrant for the contention that the absence of a reference to District Jhajjar indicates governmental intent to exclude District Jhajjar from the operation of the notification. However, this exclusion cannot be construed to be an expression of intent to exclude District Jhajjar from the operation of the notification, dated 6.2.1997. There is no warrant for the contention that the absence of a reference to District Jhajjar indicates governmental intent to exclude District Jhajjar from the operation of the notification. It would, however, be appreciated if the Government would consider the feasibility of carrying out an amendment by including the territorial limits of District Jhajjar in the 1997 notification and as and when a new District is carved out, notify amendments to include any new Districts. Such an exercise would avoid any ambiguity in the law, and unnecessary wastage of court time. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, it is apparent that as District Jhajjar was a part of District Rohtak, as it existed on 6.2.1997, and the area of District Rohtak was a part of the local area, for which jurisdiction was conferred, vide Notification No. S.O.16/C.A.2/1974/S.14/97, dated 6.2.1997, upon Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, to try and inquire into offences, under the Act, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad alone shall have jurisdiction to try and inquire into all offences, committed under the Act, within the area of District Jhajjar. The present reference is answered accordingly. Reference answered.