ORDER : This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1648/2017 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, arising out of complaint filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest and In-Charge of Regional Tiger Strike Force Sagar (M.P.) in connection with P.O.R.No.28060/02 registered at Forest Department, Tiger Reserve Force, Sagar under Section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are that as per the prosecution case, red crowned roof turtles are very rare turtles found only in the ecosystem of river Chambal. It is on the verge of extinction. It is on the red list of IUCN. It is also placed at serial 14B of Part-II of Schedule I appended to the Wild Life Protection Act. Forest officials posted at Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar apprehended co-accused Azad and on the information of Azad they raided the house of co-accused Nandlal and seized 300 gram (50 pieces) of scales of Pangolin from the house of Nandlal and registered P.O.R.No.28060/02 for the offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Act and investigated the matter. During investigation, forest officials arrested many other co-accused persons. On 10/06/017 they arrested co-accused Ajay Singh and Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Tiger Strike Force Sagar recorded his statement under Section 50 (8) of the Act. From his statement it was revealed that he was involved in transportation and smuggling of red crowned roof turtles, exclusively found in Chambal River. It was also learnt that co-accused Ajay Singh had business dealings with applicant Thameem Ansari and he was confined in Central Jail, Chennai in connection with DRI Crime No.27/2017 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1992. So, Sushri Shraddha Pandre arrested applicant Thameem Ansari on 11.10.2017 in the present case. Applicant Tameem Ansari disclosed in his statements to the competent Forest Authority under Section 50 (8) of the Act that in the year 2014, he came in contact with a person named Benty in Sri Lanka. He told him that there is a great demand of turtles in Hong Kong and Malaysia. Applicant Tameem Ansari disclosed in his statements to the competent Forest Authority under Section 50 (8) of the Act that in the year 2014, he came in contact with a person named Benty in Sri Lanka. He told him that there is a great demand of turtles in Hong Kong and Malaysia. He also showed photographs of turtles found in India on Internet and face-book and thereafter he contacted co-accused Ajay Singh, who delivered him such turtles. He purchased 450 turtles of three different varieties including expensive red crowned roof turtles for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. These turtles were transported in the Month of September, 2016 in his Car No.TN-38-AC-300 from Agra to Chennai. These turtles were to be sent from Tuticorin to Sri Lanka, however the DRI seized those turtles and he was arrested along with his agent. After being released on bail, he expanded his network and came in contact with co-accused persons namely Manivannan and Sanil and traded in rare turtles. In August, 2017 Officers of DRI seized 2500 live turtles from the house of his agent Venkatesh and he was again arrested. On that Sushri Shraddha Pandre also collected the documents from R/O case file No.DRI/CZU/TTN/VIII/48/13/INT/1/16 Chennai and R/O case file No.DRI/CZU/VIII/48/Enq-1/INT/27/17 Chennai and Filed supplementary complaint against the applicant on 05/12/2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in Criminal Case No.1648/2017, which was already pending in his Court for the offences punishable under Section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Act. 3. Earlier, on 11/07/2017 Sushri Shraddha Pandre had filed a complaint in P.O.R.No.18060/02 against Nandlal, Azad, Ajay, Sampatiya, Mannimannyan, Khokon, Sanil, Ajay, Irfan, Shailendra, Sultan, Khoka, Mishrilal and Tameem. Thereafter, she again filed a supplementary complaint against co-accused Kamal and Vijay on 21/07/2017 and against applicant Thameem Ansari on 05/12/2017. Being aggrieved by the filing of supplementary complaint and the cognizance taken by the learned CJM, Sagar on that complaint against him, applicant has filed this petition. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that on 11/07/2017 Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Tiger Strike Force Sagar filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in P.O.R.No.18060/02 against Nandlal, Azad, Ajay, Sampatiya, Mannimannyan, Khokon, Sanil, Ajay, Irfan, Shailendra, Sultan, Khoka, and Mishrilal. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that on 11/07/2017 Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Tiger Strike Force Sagar filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in P.O.R.No.18060/02 against Nandlal, Azad, Ajay, Sampatiya, Mannimannyan, Khokon, Sanil, Ajay, Irfan, Shailendra, Sultan, Khoka, and Mishrilal. On that complaint learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar took cognizance against them for the offences punishable under Section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Act and registered Criminal Case No.1648/2017. Thereafter for the same offence she again filed a supplementary complaint against co-accused Kamal and Vijay on 21/07/2017 and against applicant Thameem Ansari on 05/12/2017. While there is no provision under the Criminal Procedure Code or Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for filing a supplementary complaint to bring in any other person as an accused in the same complaint. So complaint is not maintainable against applicant. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Ajit Narain Haksar & Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner, 2001 (78) ECC 326 and the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in the case of S. Nagrajan Vs. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1574. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that from the complaint it does not appear that applicant Thameem Ansari committed any new offence. The complaint is based only on the evidence collected against him by the DRI officials in DRI crime No.DRI/CZU/TTN/VIII/48/13/INT/1/16 and DRI/CZU/VIII/48/Enq-1/INT/27/17 registered in Tamilnadu. No fresh evidence is collected by the officials of Tiger Strike Force, Sagar against the applicant. The present case is the exact reproduction of the cases registered by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, against the applicant, which is clearly in violation of constitutional right of the applicant provided under Article 20 (2) & 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard he also placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2013 (6) SCC 348 . 6. In this regard he also placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2013 (6) SCC 348 . 6. Learned counsel further submitted that when complaint is filed against a person who does not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court, before taking cognizance against that person the Magistrate is bound to follow the procedure as stipulated in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. While in this case learned CJM without complying the provision of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the applicant, who is residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned C.J.M. Sagar. So, on that ground also the order of taking cognizance against the applicant is not sustainable. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No.875/2019 and National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz & Another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.9098/2012. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that according to Section 55 of the Act and Rules framed by the State Government under the Act, the complaint can only be filed by the Director of Wildlife Preservation, the Chief Wildlife Warden and the Forest Range Officer. While in this case complaint was filed by Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar and she was not authorized to file the complaint. There is no document on record to show that she is authorised by the Government to file the complaint under the Act. So the complaint is not maintainable because the same is filed by an unauthorised person. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Forest officials only on the basis of the statement of co-accused Ajay Singh recorded under Section 50(8) of the Act implicated applicant in the crime. While the statement of co-accused Ajay Singh was not recorded in the presence of applicant, so the same is not admissible against the present applicant. There is no other incriminating evidence against the applicant on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Learned trial Court wrongly took cognizance against the applicant. While the statement of co-accused Ajay Singh was not recorded in the presence of applicant, so the same is not admissible against the present applicant. There is no other incriminating evidence against the applicant on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Learned trial Court wrongly took cognizance against the applicant. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prayed that the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1648/2017 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar so far as it relates to applicant Thameem Ansari be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar is duly authorised by the State Government to conduct the investigation and for filing the complaint for the offences punishable under the Act, so it cannot be said that the complaint has been filed by an unauthorised person. He further submitted that the said complaint has been filed by a public servant Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, hence there was no need to comply with provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant smuggled the red crowned roof turtles, which were taken by him from co-accused Ajay Singh, who collected those turtles from the Eco System of Chambal and applicant also came to M.P. to collect those turtles. The offences registered by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are different from the instant case. The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed complaints against the applicant under Section 135 of the Custom Act and not under the Wild Life Protection Act. According to the provisions of section 55 of the Act, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are not empowered to file a complaint under the Wild Life Protection Act. It is further submitted that complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sagar is authorised by the Government under the Act, so she is competent to record the statement of the persons under Section 50(8) of the Act and applicant himself in his statement recorded by complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre under Section 50(8) admitted that he was involved in smuggling of red crowned roof turtle, which is admissible in evidence against the applicant. He further submitted that there is no bar in Cr.P.C. for filing the supplementary complaint. He further submitted that there is no bar in Cr.P.C. for filing the supplementary complaint. Name of applicant is mentioned even in the first complaint, but his name is wrongly typed as Tameem of Tamilnadu. So, it can not be said that complainant filed fresh complaint against the applicant by way of filing of supplementary complaint. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 10. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel of both the parties. 11. In the Act neither there is any definition of the word ‘complaint’ nor any model format of the complaint. In these circumstances, the definition of the word ‘complaint’ will be seen from the Cr.P.C. Section 2 (d) of the Cr.P.C. defines the word “complaint” as follows:- “Complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 12. From the perusal of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., it is evident that in a complaint if any allegation against any person is mentioned, with a view to take action against him, he will be deemed as an accused of the complaint. From the definition of ‘complaint’ it does not appear that only when the name of person is mentioned in the cause title of the complaint, then only that person shall be treated as accused of that complaint. 13. In the case of Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. 2006 CRI.L.J. 788 (Supreme Court), the Apex Court opined that there is no particular format of a complaint. A petition addressed to the Magistrate containing allegations that the offence has been committed and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, can be treated as a complaint. Apex Court in the case of Bhimappa Basappa Bhu Sannavar Vs. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda, AIR 1970 SC 1153 , observed that “The word “complaint has a wide meaning since it includes even an oral allegation. It may, therefore, be assumed that no form is prescribed which the complaint must take. It may only be said that there must be an allegation which prima facie discloses the commission of an offence with the necessary facts for the Magistrate to take action”. 14. It may, therefore, be assumed that no form is prescribed which the complaint must take. It may only be said that there must be an allegation which prima facie discloses the commission of an offence with the necessary facts for the Magistrate to take action”. 14. From the definition of the word ‘complaint’ and above pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court it is apparent that if name of accused and the basis of its acquisition is mentioned in the body of complaint, there is no effect of not mentioning his name in the cause title of the complaint. He will be deemed to be an accused for that complaint and Court can take cognizance against him even his name is not mentioned in the cause title of the complaint. 15. If we see the averment of the first complaint filed by complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest and In-Charge of Regional Tiger Strike Force Sagar on 11/07/2017 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in connection with P.O.R.No.28060/02. In para-5 of that first complaint it is mentioned that applicant was also involved in the smuggling of red crowned roof turtle. He had bought red crowned roof turtle from co-accused Ajay Singh. Even in the cause title of the complaint, the name of applicant is mentioned as Tameem in the column of absconded accused persons and in the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 11/07/2017 also the name of applicant is mentioned as Tameem. Even trial Court vide order dated 21/07/17 directed to issue arrest warrant against the accused persons No.7 to 17, in which name of Tameem is included. So, only on the basis that complainant Suhri Shradha Pande after arresting the applicant on 11/10/2017 filed supplementary complaint against him on 05/12/2017, it can not be said that complainant Suhri Shradha Pande filed complaint against applicant for the first time on 05/12/2017 and the trial Court took cognizance against the applicant for the first time on 05/12/2017. 16. The facts of the cases Ajit Narain Haksar & Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Supra) and S. Nagrajan Vs. 16. The facts of the cases Ajit Narain Haksar & Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Supra) and S. Nagrajan Vs. State, (Supra) upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicant, do not match with the present case because in this case it is not the situation where complainant had not named applicant as an accused earlier and for the first time by means of supplementary complaint mentioned the name of the applicant as an accused and prayed for the Court to take cognizance against him. So these judgements do not help the applicant. 17. Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, embargo under Article 20 (2) or Section 26 General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features. The doctrine of double jeopardy protects a person from being tried and punished twice for the same offence, but not from different offences arising out of violation of different laws by the same set of facts. 18. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of double jeopardy under Article 20(2), in the case of The State Of Bombay vs S. L. Apte & Another, AIR 1961 SC 578 held “If, therefore the offences were distinct there is no question of the rule as to double-jeopardy as embodied in Art. 20(2) of the Constitution being applicable. The next point to be considered is as regards the scope of s. 26 of the General Clauses Act. Though s.26 in its opening words refers to "the act or omission constituting an offence under two or more enactments", the emphasis is not on the facts alleged in the two complaints but rather on the ingredients which constitute the two offences with which a person is charged. This is made clear by the concluding portion of the Section which refers to "shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence,". If the offences are not the same but are distinct, the ban imposed by this provision also cannot be invoked.” 19. This is made clear by the concluding portion of the Section which refers to "shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence,". If the offences are not the same but are distinct, the ban imposed by this provision also cannot be invoked.” 19. In the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 in a similar situation where the allegations on the accused/respondents were that he on 08/06/1986 at 02:00 p.m. along with two others named in the complaint, shot and killed an elephant in Compartment No. 13 of the Kundurugutu Range Forest and removed the ivory tusks of the elephant. The Range Officer of forest of that range lodged a written complaint with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chaibasa, alleging offences against respondents under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The learned Magistrate took cognisance of this offence and ordered issue of process to the accused and at the Police Station, Sonua, a case was registered under Sections 447, 429 and 379 IPC read with Sections 54 and 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for the same act, The Apex Court held as under:- “11. We might now turn to certain provisions of the Act. Section 9(1) of the Act says that no person shall “hunt” any wild animal specified in Schedule I. Elephant is included in Schedule I. The expression “wild animal” is defined in Section 2(36) to mean “any animal found wild in nature and includes any animal specified in Schedule I” etc. The expression “hunting” is defined in Section 2(16) in a comprehensive manner:- “2. (16) ‘hunting’, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes,— (a) capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring and trapping of any wild animal and every attempt to do so, (b) driving any wild animal for any of the purposes specified in sub-clause (a), (c) injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles, or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles;” 12. Section 51 of the Act provides for penalties. Violation of Section 9(1) is an offence under Section 51(1). Section 55 deals with cognizance of offences: “55. Section 51 of the Act provides for penalties. Violation of Section 9(1) is an offence under Section 51(1). Section 55 deals with cognizance of offences: “55. No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of the Chief WildLife Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf.” 13. What emerges from a perusal of these provisions is that cognizance of an offence under the “Act” can be taken by a court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Section 55. The person who lodged complaint dated 23-6-1986 claimed to be such an officer. In these circumstances even if the jurisdictional police purported to register a case for an alleged offence against the Act, Section 210(1) would not be attracted having regard to the position that cognizance of such an offence can only be taken on the complaint of the officer mentioned in that section. Even where a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence instituted otherwise than on a police report and an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to same offence, the two cases do not lose their separate identity. The section seeks to obviate the anomalies that might arise from taking cognizance of the same offence more than once. But, where, as here, cognizance can be taken only in one way and that on the complaint of a particular statutory functionary, there is no scope or occasion for taking cognizance more than once and, accordingly, Section 210 has no role to play. The view taken by the High Court on the footing of Section 210 is unsupportable. 20. In this case also the crime No. DRI/CZU/VIII/48/Enq-1/INT/27/17 was registered against the applicant under Section 104(6) read with 135 of Custom Act for the act of illegally keeping 2515 Indian Star Tortoise, which are listed in Schedule IV of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and illegally attempting to export the Indian Star Tortoise and also smuggling out the same to Sri Lanka. The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) did not registered the crime under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. While this case has been registered against the applicant for purchasing and transporting the red crowned roof turtles from the Eco System of the river Chambal under Section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. While this case has been registered against the applicant for purchasing and transporting the red crowned roof turtles from the Eco System of the river Chambal under Section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Hence, mere initiation of proceedings by the officials of DRI for illegally keeping the 2515 of Indian Star Tortoise, which are listed in schedule-IV of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and illegally attempting to export the Indian Star Tortoise and also smuggling out the same to Sri Lanka cannot and shall not debar the forest officials from taking action against applicant for committing offence under Section 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Act, which are distinct offence from the offences registered by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the Custom Act. 21. The facts of the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (Supra) also do not match with the present case. In that case police registered two FIRs in respect of offences committed in the course of the same transaction. While in this case two different agencies registered the case against the applicant for two different Acts. So that judgement also do not apply in the instant case. 22. Although in order to ensure that innocent people are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, an amendment has been inserted in Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by way of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 23 June 2006 which makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction, he shall enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. But where the complaint is filed by the public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, the question of holding inquiry may not arise. But where the complaint is filed by the public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, the question of holding inquiry may not arise. The provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. are very clear on that point in which it is mentioned that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses -if a public servant acting or -purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint. In this case also the complaint was filed by the complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar (A public servant) in acting or -purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. So it was not obligatory for the CJM that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction either to inquire into the case by himself or get the police or other person to conduct the investigation. The judgments passed in the cases of Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. & Others (Supra) and National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz & Another (Supra) are clearly distinguishable on the facts because in both the cases complaint was filed by the private person not by the public servant acting or -purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. So these judgements do not assist the applicant. 23. The M.P Rules of 1974 are framed pursuant to Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Rule 55 of the M.P Rules of 1974 reads thus : “55. Cognizance of offences.-The following officers shall be authorised to make complaints under Section 55, namely :- (a) Chief Wild Life Warden; (b) Wild Life Wardens; (c) Forest Range Officers. 24. Since the State of Madhya Pradesh by framing the Rules of 1974 has authorized Chief Wildlife Warden; Wildlife Wardens; and Forest Range Officers to file the complaint and Deputy Conservator of Forest who filed the complaint is superior to the rank of Forest Range Officers. 25. The provisions contained in Secs.50(8)(d) and Sec.50(9) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act read as follows: “Sec:50. 25. The provisions contained in Secs.50(8)(d) and Sec.50(9) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act read as follows: “Sec:50. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the Chief WildLife Warden or the authorised officer or any forest officer or any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act,- (1) xx xxx (2) xx xxx (3) xx xxx (4) xx xxx (5) xx xxx (6) xx xxx (7) xx xxx (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any officer not below the rank of an Assistant Director of WildLife Preservation or an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf shall have the powers, for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of this Act,- (a) to issue a search warrant; (b) to enforce the attendance of witnesses; (c) to compel the discovery and production of documents and material objects; and (d) to receive and record evidence. (9). 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 the accused person. 26. Which shows that Deputy Conservator of Forest, authorised by the State Government in this behalf shall have the powers, for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of the Act and also empowered to record the statement of an accused. Learned Government advocate also produced the copy of order dated 22/08/2006 issued by the Chief Wildlife Warden whereby all mi&oueaMykf/kdkjh are authorised to act under Section 50(6) and 50(8) of the Act. The investigation of the crime has been conducted by Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sagar. The statement of applicant is also recorded by her under Section 50(8) of the Act. In the complaint it is clearly mentioned that the complainant is duly authorised to file a complaint under Section 55 of the Act. At this stage the averment of the complaint is considered prima facie true. The statement of applicant is also recorded by her under Section 50(8) of the Act. In the complaint it is clearly mentioned that the complainant is duly authorised to file a complaint under Section 55 of the Act. At this stage the averment of the complaint is considered prima facie true. So at this stage it can not be ascertained whether the complainant is authorised by the Government to conduct the investigation of crime under the Act or she is competent to record the statement of the persons under Section 50(8) of the Act and for filing of complaint. It is a matter of fact, which requires evidence to decide. 27. Applicant himself in his statement recorded by complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre under Section 50(8) of the Act admitted that he was involved in smuggling of red crowned roof turtle, and he purchased the same from co-accused Ajay Singh, which is admissible in evidence against the applicant. Forest official also collected the statement of bank account of Ajay Singh showing that applicant transferred money in his account. So, at this stage it can not be said that there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. So proceedings of Criminal Case No.1648/2017 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar can not be quashed at this stage. 28. Criminal Case No.1648/2017 is fixed for before charge evidence. During before charge evidence the applicant has the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and raise all his objections at the stage of charge argument. 29. Hence, petition filed by the applicant is dismissed with the liberty that applicant is free to raise his objections at appropriate stage, which shall be decided by the trial Court according to law without being influenced by the order passed herein. C.c. as per rules.