M RAJESWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of hotel India international, a place for lodging, at Bangalore. She is prosecuted along with others for offences under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the immoral traffic (prevention) Act, 1956 ('act' for short ). This was after the police inspector of special squad, c. c. b. , Bangalore, raided the hotel concerned and found therein certain girls having been brought from Bombay for the purpose of prostitution. The case of the prosecution is that, the manager of the hotel said that, at the instance of the petitioner-owner, in order to have more business in the hotel, these kinds of things were being permitted.

(2.) THE objection of Sri s. g. bhagwan, learned counsel for the petitioner is a technical one, viz. , that there is no compliance with Section 13 of the act as regards the status of the officer who has dealt with the offences concerned herein. What has happened in the present case is that, after the said police inspector of special squad, c. c. b. , Bangalore, found the above said circumstances in the hotel and set the law in motion by lodging a complaint to the s. h. o. of kengeri gate police station, it is the sub-inspector of police of kengeri gate police station who has investigated into the same and has submitted the charge-sheet. Section 13 (1) of the act inter alia provides that, for each area, there shall be a special police officer for dealing with offences under the act in that area. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides that, the special police officer shall not be below the rank of an inspector of police. In Delhi administration v ram singh, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'dealing with the offences' occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the act includes power of investigation, and that the offences under the act can be investigated only by special police officer and not by other police officer. The Supreme Court said that the special police officer being competent to investigate, it is only he and his assistant police officers who are the only persons competent to investigate the offences under the Act, and that the police officer not specially appointed as special police officer cannot investigate the offences under the act even though they are cognizable offences. In state of Madhya Pradesh v mubarak ali, while dealing with the Provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Supreme Court listed several steps involved in the investigation of an offence starting from the receipt of information and ending with the filing of the chargesheet, thereby making it clear that, even the act of filing of the chargesheet is a step in course of investigation.

(3.) LOOKED at in the background of the Provisions concerned and the two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that the offences have been dealt with by the sub-inspector of police of kengeri gate police station who is not a special police officer competent to deal with the offences under the act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, more so, when he is not of the rank of an inspector of police, which would be the minimum condition in view of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the act.