Holding

The Central Government, under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and with the State's consent, validly transferred the investigation to the CBI, which therefore has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

Summary

Motilal was arrested for possessing skins of protected wildlife under several provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Central Government, invoking the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, issued a notification and, with the consent of the Uttar Pradesh Government, transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appellant contended that the Wild Life Act, being a special law with its own investigative scheme, barred the CBI from investigating and relied on a prior decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the consent provision, and the powers conferred by Section 50 of the Wild Life Act, holding that the Act does not exclude police officers or the CBI from investigation and that the Code of Criminal Procedure applies subject to the specific provisions of the Wild Life Act. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the offences and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation can investigate offences punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Whether the provisions of the Wild Life Act constitute a self‑contained code that excludes other agencies from investigation.
Whether the notification under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the consent of the State Government confer jurisdiction on the CBI.
Whether the precedent set in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan is applicable to the present facts.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 360, s. 4(2)
Delhi Special Police Establishment Acts. 3, s. 5, s. 6
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972s. 3, s. 39(3), s. 44, s. 49, s. 5, s. 50, s. 51, s. 54, s. 55, s. 57, s. 58, s. 6, s. 9

Subjects

wildlife protectionCBI jurisdictionspecial lawinvestigation powersDelhi Special Police Establishment ActSection 50Code of Criminal Proceduretransfer of investigationstate consent

Judgment

MOTi LAL A
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

APRIL 9, 2002

[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Sections 3, 5, 6, 9, 39(3), 44, 49, 50,
57 and 58.

Accused charged with offence of keeping skins of wild animals-Transfer C
of the case-Notification by Central Government-Consent Order by State
Government-Transfer of the case to Delhi Special Police Establishment-
Chal/enged Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation of the case Held,
the Central Government under the provision of the Wild Life Act could transfer
the case for investigation by the Delhi Special Police Establishment/Central D
Bureau of Investigation-Cognizance of the offence could be taken as per
special procedure prescribed under the Act-Code of Criminal Procedure;
Section 4(2).

Officers of Sales Tax Department conducted a search and found in one
truck skins of wild animals hidden inside a cotton bundle. On receipt of E
information, Officers of the Forest Department arrived and seized the skin
of animals under Section 50 of the Wild Life Act. Driver and Conductor of
the truck were taken into custody. FIR was lodged. The Appellant-Accused
was arrested .in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39(3),
44, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Act. Subsequently, the Central Government issued
notifications transferring the investigation of the case to Delhi Special Police F
Establishment. This was challenged by the appellant by way of a Writ Petition
which was rejected by the High Court. Hence this appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that Wild Life Act is a special law
and it contains comprehensive provisions for investigation, inquiry, search, G
seizure, compounding of offences, trial and punishment. Therefore, the Police
Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was not
empowered to investigate the case. It was contended for the respondents that
· • the investigation in the matter was transferred to Central Bureau of
Investigation only after issuing of necessary notification by the Central

995
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A Government and consent order by the State Government. Therefore, CBI was \ ..
_..
having jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
...
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
" HELD: 1.1. Admittedly, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section
B 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (Act) notification was issued
by the Central Government specifying that offences punishable undet Section
51 of the Wild Life Act could be investigated by the Delh~ Special Police
Establishment. Thereafter, the State of U.P. has issued the Notification, .....
according its consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the
members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in investigation of the
c offences punishable relating to the seizure of skin of Tiger and Leopard under
Schedule 1 of the Wild Life Act and also under Section 10/15 of the Animal
Cruelty Act. Subsequently, the Central Government issued a Notification,
empowering members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigating
the aforesaid cases. Thus under the provision of the Act, CBI have jurisdiction
D to investigate the matter. [999-H; 1000-A-BJ

1.2. Central Government has issued notification under the provisions
of clause (a) of Section 55 of the Wild Life Act, authorizing the officers of \-
Delhi Special Police Establishment not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police to file complaints with regard to the offences
E punishable under the Act in the areas-in their respective jurisdiction.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the CBI was not entitled to file the criminal
complaint against the appellant. The Police Officers are not excluded from
investigating the offences under the Wild Life Act. Sub-section (1) of Section
50 starts with a non-obstante clause that 'notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force' which would include the Code of
F Criminal Procedure and the Officers mentioned therein are also entitled to
inspect, search or seize the articles mentioned in clauses (a}, (b) and (c). This
would mean that apart from the Police Officers not below the rank of Sub-
Inspector, other officers are given special powers for the purpose of prevention
and detection of the offence under the Act. (1002-E, G, H; lOOJ:A]
G
2.1. In view of specific provision under the Wild Life Act, apart from
the Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, the Director or any
other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden
- '
i
..,_
or authorised Officer, any Forest Officer, can inspect, conduct, search or
inquire, seize article mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of
H Secion 50. To that extent, there is co.1trary provision under the Wild Life Act
MOTi LAL v. C.8.1. [SHAH. J.] 997
and would prevail as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Code of A
Criminal Procedure. [1003-G-H; 1004-AI

2.2. The scheme of Section 50 of the Wild Life Act makes it abundantly
clear that Police Officer is also empowered to investigate the offenres and
search and seize the offending articles. For trial of offences, Code of Criminal
Procedure is required to be followed and for that there is no other specific B
•
provision to the contrary. [1004-H; 1005-AJ

Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1996] 9
0

SCC 735, held inapplicable.

2.3. Sub-section (5) of Section 51 provides that nothing contained in C
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence of hunting
in a sanctuary or a national park or of an offence against any provision of
Chapter 5A unless such person is under 18 years of age. The aforesaid specific
provisions are contrary to the provisions contained in Code of Criminal D
Procedure and that would prevail during the trial. However, from this, it
cannot be concluded that operation of rest of the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are excluded. [1005-B-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. E
476 of 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.200 I of the Allahabad High
Court in Crl. M.W.P. No. 6830 of 2000.

D.N. Goburdhan and Pramod Oulu for the Appellant.
F
P.P. Malhotra, A.D.N. Rao and A Mariarputham for P. Parmeswaran for
the Respondent No. I.

Praveen Swarup for Pramod Swarup for the Respondent No. 2.
G
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by

SHAH, J. Leave granted.

The short question involved in this appeal is-whether the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) was authorised to investigate an offence, which is H
. ,

998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Wild Life Act') as is contended that the said Act is a self contained
Code? Before deciding the said question we would narrate brief facts of the ,
case.

The appellant, who is resident of Delhi, was arrested in connection with
B the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39(3), 44, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of
.the Wild Life Act. It is alleged that the officers of ~e Sales Tax Department
conducted checking of a truck at Mohan Nagar barrier in District Ghaziabad
on the night of 18th/19th December, 1999 and a bundle of cotton cloth was
found therein, which according to the documents, was being transported from.
C 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. On receipt of the
said information, officers of the Forest Department, Ghaziabad arrived on the
spot and seized the skins of animals under Section 50 of the Wild Life Act.
Driver and the conductor of the truck were taken into custody and thereafter
FIR was lodged and the case was registered as Crime No. 915 of 1999 under
D the Wild Life Act. By notification dated 21st March, 2000 issued by the
Central Government, the investigation of the case was subsequently transferred
to Delhi Special Police Establishment.

The order passed by the Central Government transferring the investigation
E to Delhi Special Police Establishment was challenged by filing Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 6830 of 2000 before the High Court of Allahabad with the
prayer that the appellant be released forthwith. The High Court, by the impugned
judgment and order dated 7th February, 2001, rejected the said petition. Hence,
this appeal.
,.
F At the time of hearing of this matter, Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Wild Life Act is a
special law as understood under Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and it contains comprehensive provisions for investigation, inquiry, search,
seizure, compounding of offences, trial and punishment and, therefore, the
Police Force Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act
G (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was no! empowered to investigate the t
case. He also submitted that under the Act jurisdiction of the Special Police
Force is limited in relation to the investigation of offences within the Union
Territories as specified in the Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act.
In support of his contention he relied upon the decision rendered by this Court
H in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan aYJfl Ors., [1996] 9
MOT! LAL v. C.B.I. [SHAH. J.] 999
sec 735. As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the A
respondents submitted that before transferring the investigation, the Central
Government has issued Notification, as required under Section 5 of the Act
and the State of U.P. has also issued necessary consent order, as required
under Section 6 of the said Act. Hence, the CBI is having jurisdiction to
investigate the offence.
B
For appreciating the said contentions, we would refer to relevant parts
• of Sections 3, 5(1) and 6 of the Act which read as under: -

"3. Offences to be investigated by special police establishment.
The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated c
by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.

5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police
establishment to other ar~as.-

.. (1) The Central Government may by order extend to any area D
(including Railway areas) , in a State, not being a Union Territory
the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of
offences specified in a notification under section 3.
(2) E
(3)

6. Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and
jurisdiction. Nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable
any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise
powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union F
territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of
that State."

Admittedly, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act,
notification dated 24.1.1996 was issued by the Central Government specifying G
that offences punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Act could be
- • investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Thereafter, the State
of U.P. has issued the Notification, as required under Section 6 of the Act
·· wherein it has been stated that the State of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to accord
the consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment in the investigation of the Offence(s) H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R. '
A punishable relating to the seizure of skin of Tiger and Leopard under Schedule t'
1 of the Wild Life Act, namely, case Crime No. 915/99 under Sections 9/ :..::....
39(3), 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Wild Life Act and also case Crime ..;'

No. 11/2000 under Section 429/379/411 IPC and Section 49B/5 l of the Wild
Life Act and also under Section 10/15 of the Animal Cruelty Act. Subsequently,
the Central Government had issued a Notification, as contemplated under
B Section 5 of the Act empowering members of Delhi Special Police
Establishment for investigating the aforesaid cases. In view of the Notifications
issued by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act and the ~

Notification issued by the State of U.P. according consent to the extension of
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police ..._
c Establishment to investigate the offences, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the CBI does not have jurisdiction to investigate
the matter is without any substance.

Keeping the aforesaid Notifications in mind, we would first refer to the
relevant provisions of the Wild Life Act. It is the contention of the learned
D counsel for the appellant that Section 50 prescribes exhaustive procedure to
investigate and seize the articles specified therein. It also provides the procedure
for the arrest of the persons, who are found in possession of the articles ·•
mentioned therein. It is his contention that sub-sections (1 ), (8) and (9) of ~

Section 50 make the position abundantly clear that the officers mentioned and
authorised under the Act would only have jurisdiction to investigate the offences
E
under the Wild Life Act. He also contended that sub-section (9) of Section 50
makes a departure ,..and provides that evidence recorded by the officer
empowered under sub-section (8) of Section 50 is made admissible in any
subsequent trial before the magistrate and, therefore, also the police officer
would not be entitled to investigate the offence because the evidence recorded
F by the police officer is inadmissible at the trial under the Evidence Act. For
appreciating the said contention, we would refer to the relevant provisions of
Sections 50 and 55.

"Chapter VI-Prevention and Detection of Offences.

G 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 Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or
any Forest Officer or any Police Officer not below the rank of a sub-
H inspector, may, if he has reasonahle grounds for believing that any
MOT! LAL v. C.B.l. [SHAH, J.] 1001
person has committed an offence against this Act,- A
(a) require any person to produce for inspection any captive animal;
I wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified
plant or part or derivative thereof in his control, custody or
possession, or any licence, permit or other document granted to
him or required to be kept by him under the provisions of this Act; B
(b) stop any vehicle or vessel in order to conduct search or inquiry or
.... enter upon and search any premises, land, vehicle or vessel, in the
occupation of such person, and open and search any baggage or other
things in his possession;
•
··~
(c) seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat trophy
c
or uncured trophy, or any specified plant or part or derivative thereof,
in respect of which an offence against this Act appears to have been
committed, in the possession of any person together with any trap,
tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used for committing any such offence
and, unless he is satisfied that such person will appear and answer any D
charge which may be preferred against him, arrest him without warrant
and detain him:
Provided that where a fisherman, residing within ten kilometres of a
sanctuary or National Park, inadvertently enters on a boat, not used
for commercial fishing, in the territorial waters in that sanctuary or E
National Park, a fishing tackle or net on such boat shall not be seized.]
(4) Any person detained, or things seized under the foregoing power,
shall forthwith be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with
I according to law.
(5) Any person who, without reasonable cause, fails to produce F
anything, which he is required to produce under this section, shall
be guilty of an offence against this Act.
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained iP any other law for the time
being in force, any officer not below the rank of an Assistant
Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden shall G
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 attendance of witnesses; H
-t
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.
'
I

A (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
B admissible in any subsequ~.~t tri~l before. a Magis~ate provided that it
has been taken in the presence of the accused person.

55. Cognizance of offences. No Court shall tak~ cognizance of any
offence agai!lst this Act on the ~omplaint of any person other than
(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer
c authori.sed in this behalf by the Central Government; or
'
'; (b) the Chief Wild Life Warden; or any other officer authorised in this
behalf by the State Government; or
""
\--

(c) any person who has given notice of not l.ess than.sixty gays, in the
manner prescribed, of the alleged offence an.d of l;iis intention to
D
make a complaint, to the ·Central Government or the State
Government or the officer authorised as afore~aid." '
At this stage, we would mention that the <;:en~al Government has issued '"I

notification dated 7th April 2000 under the provisions of cla~se (a) of Section
E 55 of the Wild Life Act, authorizing the officers of, Delhi Special Police
Establishment not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to file -,
complaints with regard to the offences punishable under the Act in the areas
in their respeetive jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot· be· said that the CBI was
not e~titled to file the criminal complaint aga'"ttist the appellant.

F Further, considering sub-section (1) of Section 50, it is apparent that
under the Wild Life Act, the Director or any other officer authorised by him
in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any
Forest Officer are empowered to exercise the powers mentioned in sub-clauses
(a), (b) and (c). Not only this, but it specifically empowers the Police Officer
not below the rank of sub-inspector to inspect, conduct, search or. hold inquiry
G or seize articles, as provided in clauses (a) , (b) and·( c) . Thi~ would certainly
mean that the Police Officers are not excluded from investigating the offences
under the Act. Sub-section (l) starts w~th a non;obstante clause that
'notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force' which would include the Code of Cruninal Procedure and the Officers "·
H mentioned therein are also entitled to inspect, search or seize the articles
MOTi LAL v. C.B.I. [SHAH, J.] 1003
· mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c). This would mean that apart from the A"
~,
Police Officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, other officers as mentioned
above are given special powers for the purpose of prevention and detection of
the offence under the Act.

Similarly, sub-section (8) empowers the officer not below the rank of an
Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden for the B
purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of the
~
Act: to issue search warrant; to enforce the attendance of witnesses; to compel
the discovery and production of documents and material objects; and to receive
and record evidence. Further, sub-section (9) provides that evidence recorded
by such officer would be admissible in the trial if it is taken in presence of
the accused person. But this would have no bearing on the question whether
c
the Police Officers are entitled to investigate the case or not.

As provided under sub-section (1) of Section 50, 'police officers' are
~
not excluded for the purpose of investigation including inspection, search and
seizure of the offending articles. No doubt, special powers are conferred to D
other officers but that is in consonance with sub-section (2) of Section 4 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 4 of the Code reads thus:-

"4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.
(I) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to E
the provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired
into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions,
7 but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the
manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise F
:::l
dealing with such offences."
... The aforesaid section inter alia specifically provides that all offences under
any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt
with according to the Code of Criminal Procedure but it shall be subject to any
enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of G
investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
'__, In view of specific provision under the Wild Life Act, apart from the police
officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, the Director or any other officer
authorised by him in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden or authorised
, officer or any Forest officer can inspect, conduct search or inquire, seize H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A article mentioned in the clauses (a) , (b) and (c) of sub-section (1). To this
extent, there is contrary provision under the Wild Life Act and would prevail
as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the decision in the case of
State of Rajasthan (supra) wherein this Court dealt with the question-whether
B the CBI can investigate the offences for violation of the Foreign Exchange
(Regulation) Act, 1973 ("FERA" for short) , more so, when the offence is
alleged to have been committed outside the Indian territory? After referring to
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of FERA, the Court held that the Act enacts that for
implementing and enforcement of provisions of FERA, different classes of
C officers of Enforcement have been constituted in Section 3. The Court observed l.
that from a combined reading of sections 3, 4 and 5 of FERA, it was clear that
primarily officers of Enforcement Directorate as mentioned in Sections 3 and
4 have been empowered to exercise the powers and discharge the duties
conferred or imposed on such officers of the Enforcement Directorate under
FERA. And, in such cases, the Central Government under Section 5 can
D authorise any officer of the Customs or Central Excise Officer or Police Officer
or any officer of the Central Government or State Government to exercise
such of the powers and discharge such of the duties of the Director of
Enforcement or any other officer of Enforcement under FERA as may be
specified subject to such conditions and limitations as deemed fit by the Central
Government. The Court also held that as it was nobody's case that any
,E
notification has been issued under FERA authorising the member of Delhi
Special Police Establishment to discharge the duties and functions of an officer
" ~

of Enforcement Directorate and in absence of such notification under FERA, .._
a member of Delhi Special Police Establishment cannot be held to be an
officer under FERA and, therefore, is not competent to investigate into the ....
L
F offences under FERA. The Court further observed that FERA being a special
law containing provisions for investigation, inquiry, search, seizure, trial and F-
imposition of punishment for offences under FERA, section 5 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not applicable in respect of offences under FERA. ~

In our view, the aforesaid judgment has no bearing in the present case. >--
G As stated above, the Central Government has issued notification dated 21.3.2000 "
under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Act empowering the CBI for
investigation of the case against the appellants under the Wild Life Act and ...___:
Indian Penal Code. The scheme of Section 50 of the Wild Life Act makes it
abundantly clear that Police Officer is also empowered to investigate the
H offences and seaich and seize the offending articles. For trial of offences, t
I

..
I
f-
'
vI''
MOTi LAL v. C.B.I. [SHAH, J.] 1005
Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed and for that there is no A
other specific provision to the contrary. Special procedure prescribed is limited
for taking cognizance of the offence as well as powers are given to other
officers mentioned in Section 50 for inspection, arrest, search and seizure as
well ofrecording statement. The power to compound offences is also conferred
under Section 54. Section 51 provides for penalties which would indicate that B
certain offences are cognizable offences meaning thereby police officer can
arrest without warrant. Sub-section (5) of Section 51 provides that nothing
contained in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence with
respect to hunting in a sanctuary or a national park or of an offence against
any provision of Chapter SA unless such person is under 18 years of age. The C
aforesaid specific provisions are contrary to the provisions contained in Code
of Criminal Procedure and that would prevail during the trial. However, from
this, it cannot be said that operation of rest of the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are excluded.

In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention raised D
by the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 50 of the Wild Life Act
is complete code and, therefore, CBI would have no jurisdiction to investigate
the offences under the said Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the judgment and
order passed by the High Court rejecting the petition filed by the appellant is
in any way illegal or erroneous.
E
In the result, appeal is dismissed.

S.K.S. Appeal dismiosed.

-