Judgment : 1. Petitioner is the first accused in a crime involving forest offences, registered as O.R No.13/2013 of Padom Forest Station. The above crime has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 2(2), 2(16), 2(32), 2(33), 9, 39, 50 and 51 of The W ild Life Protection Act, for short, 'the Act' over the killing of a python, a protected wild animal under Schedule 1 of the above Act, and transportation of its meat. 2. Allegation is that while accused nos.2 and 3 were riding on a motor bike with the meat of a python, they were intercepted by a police party at about 6:30 p.m on 03.04.2013. Detection of the meat carried in their bike and, later, interrogation of those accused disclosed commission of offences under the Act. Police party arrested the two riders, and seized the meat and also bike preparing a mahazar. The two arrested persons with the meat and bike seized, and mahazar prepared over the seizure, with a report, were handed over to the Range Forest Officer, by the police. The aforesaid crime was registered by the Range Officer for the offences stated supra naming three persons as accused, among whom riders of the bike handed over by police were arrayed as second and third accused. Interrogation of second and third accused had disclosed that the meat carried in the bike was that of a python which was caught from a forest by petitioner. He kept the python initially in a sack in a rubber plantation beside his house, and, later, killed that animal. Portions of meat of that animal were given to second and third accused, who transported it in the bike, which, on its way, was intercepted by police. 3. Petitioner after moving an application for anticipatory bail, and that turned down, surrendered before the Forest Officer on 27.06.2013. After his arrest and interrogation on his production before magistrate he was remanded to judicial custody which still continues. He has filed the above application seeking his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor notice was ordered to the Special Government Pleader (Forest), for hearing him also, noticing the facts and circumstances giving rise to registration of the crime by Forest Officer. Special Government Pleader(Forest) appeared and, then, all counsel were heard. 5. 4. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor notice was ordered to the Special Government Pleader (Forest), for hearing him also, noticing the facts and circumstances giving rise to registration of the crime by Forest Officer. Special Government Pleader(Forest) appeared and, then, all counsel were heard. 5. Period of detention already suffered by petitioner from 27.06.2013, the date on which he was arrested on surrender, and, later, remanded to custody is canvassed by his counsel for releasing him on bail subject to conditions as deemed fit and proper. Petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the crime is the submission of counsel. Maximum penalty that could be imposed on an accused, if convicted for offences alleged, according to counsel, is imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine which extend to Rs.25,000/-, or with both. Sub Section (1) of Section 51 of the Act alone is applicable to the facts of the case, and first proviso thereunder has no applicability, is the submission of counsel stating that proviso will be applicable only in cases where the offence relates to hunting in a sanctuary or a national park or altering the boundaries of a sanctuary or national park. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this court for his release on bail, is the further submission of counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that some of the accused are yet to be apprehended, and also pointing out the gravity of offences imputed. 6. Special government Pleader (Forest) was given notice to render assistance since the facts disclosed that handing over of accused persons, A2 and A3, to forest official by police under the circumstances referred without registering a separate crime by police appeared to be not proper and correct. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in the fact situation presented in the case an offence under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code has also been made out, and when that be so, registration of a crime for such offence and investigation by police is not at all barred and, further, more desirable to advance the ends of justice. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in the fact situation presented in the case an offence under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code has also been made out, and when that be so, registration of a crime for such offence and investigation by police is not at all barred and, further, more desirable to advance the ends of justice. No question of double jeopardy as if the above penal offence and those covered under the Act are one and the same, nor any bar under Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in continuing with investigation of a police registered case while the crime registered under the Act continued would arise, is the submission of Special Government Pleader relying on "State of Bihar V Murad Ali Khan" (AIR (1989) SC 1). 7. In the present case, after detection of transportation of meat of a wild animal in a motor bike by second and third accused, seizing the meat and vehicle and arresting those accused persons, police handed over them to forest officials since the meat carried was of a python, a protected animal under the Act. When arrest was made by police in a case disclosing cognizable offence, even if complaint over such offence could be entertained by court only from any other authority or person named in a particular statute, registering of a crime cannot be dispensed with. On the facts presented also, seizure of meat of a wild animal from two persons by police, a penal offence under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, definitely, would lie apart from those covered by the Act. Similar set of facts can constitute separate offences under two different laws. An act or omission constituting an offence under the Indian Penal Code can at the same time constitute a different offence under any other law. The apex court in Murad Ali Khan's case, referred to above, has held that the ingredients of an offence under sub Section 9(1) and Section 51 of the Act required for its establishment certain ingredients which are not part of the offence under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, and vice versa. The apex court in Murad Ali Khan's case, referred to above, has held that the ingredients of an offence under sub Section 9(1) and Section 51 of the Act required for its establishment certain ingredients which are not part of the offence under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, and vice versa. Question considered in that case related to two criminal proceedings, initiated separately, one under the provisions of the Act by forest officials and another for penal offences under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code with some other offences, by police, over the shooting and killing of an elephant in a range forest. Cognizance of offences under the Act taken on a complaint of forest officials was challenged by the accused contending that investigation of police registered crime, which then continued attracted the bar under Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in proceeding with the complaint case. Challenge raised was accepted by High Court and the complaint case was quashed. After examining the legal issues involved the apex court in the above decision set aside the order of High Court holding that where the offences under the two Acts are distinct and separate though on the same set of facts no bar under Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in continuing with investigation of the crime registered by police, nor any question of double jeopardy would arise. Suffice to state that on the facts presented in the case also, as rightly stressed by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), the police should have registered a crime for the penal offence disclosed and proceeded with its investigation while giving a report to forest officials also for registering a crime under the Act since the offences thereunder too had been disclosed. Cognizance of the offences under the Act can be taken only on a complaint filed by any one of the authorities or person specified under Section 55 of the Act which does not include police; but that is no bar to the police in registering the crime for the offences disclosed with the penal offence involved, and then, sending a report to the forest official concerned to proceed against the offenders for the offences under the Act, prima facie, disclosed. 8. 8. I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that first proviso to Section 51 and punishment provided thereunder is not applicable to the case . On the contrary, where the offence committed is in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I or part II of Schedule II or meat of any such animal, it need not be further shown that the offence related to hunting in a sanctuary or a national park, which constitute a distinct and separate offence. So much so, on the allegations imputed in the present case, prima facie, the first proviso of sub section (1) of Section 51 is applicable, and not sub section (1) of the above Section as contended by counsel in imposing punishment on conviction. 9. Now, coming to the question of releasing petitioner on bail, it is seen, investigation of the crime is still continuing and some of the accused involved in commission of offences under the Act are yet to be apprehended. One among the accused, A3, however, it is seen, after undergoing detention for some time, has already been enlarged on bail. Perusal of case diary would also show that continued detention of petitioner for completion of investigation of crime is not essential though some of the accused are to be apprehended. Petitioner has already suffered detention of more than three weeks and, at this stage, he can be released on bail imposing adequate conditions safeguarding investigation of the crime. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the following conditions: 1) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum by each of them to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Pathanamthitta. 2) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer at the station once in a week on every Monday at a time between 10:00 a.m and 12:00 noon for a period of eight weeks or till completion of investigation of the crime, whichever is earlier. 3. Petitioner shall not leave the State for a period of six months or till completion of investigation of crime, whichever is earlier, without getting prior permission from the magistrate. Petition is allowed.