JOSEPH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by accused 6 and 7 in Crime 318 of 2002 of Vadakkencherry Police Station for quashing the proceedings initiated against them pursuant to Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 report in the above crime. The allegation is that on 21. 9. 2002 one Rajesh was going in a maruthi car along with Sudha Rajan, Raju and Kavya and the Sub Inspector of police, Vadakkencherry Police Station and party intercepted the vehicle and searched the vehicle and then it was found that they were going to Coimbatore. The allegation is that they were going in the maruthi car to Coimbatore for prostitution. Those who were in the car were arrested by the Sub Inspector of police and were taken to Vadakkencherry Police Station. Crime 318 of 2002 was registered against the persons who were there in the maruthi car alleging commission of offences under S. 3, 4, 5 (1) (c), 6, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Annexure-A1 is the copy of the FIR Petitioners were made accused in the crime during the course of investigation. Annexure-A2 is the report sent to court by the investigating agency saying that the petitioners also committed the offences.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the proceedings in the crime have to be quashed for the reason that the Sub Inspector of Police who searched the vehicle and arrested accused 1 to 4 is not a special police officer or a trafficking police officer and hence the entire proceedings in pursuance of registering the crime are vitiated for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel points out that S. 13 of the Act provides for appointment of a special police officer for dealing with the offences under the Act. What S. 13 says is that there shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences under the Act in that area. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the term used in S. 13 "dealing with offences" will take in detection, registering and investigation of the crime and those can be done only by a special police officer. Here, the detection and registering of the crime were done by the Sub Inspector of Police and the investigation is also being proceeded with by him. The request for quashing the proceedings in pursuance of the F. I. R. is made by saying that the investigation is being conducted by the sub Inspector of Police without any authority.

(3.) IN Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh it was observed that the special police officer is competent to investigate and he and his assistant police officers are the only persons competent to investigate the offences under the Act and that police officers not specially appointed as special police officers cannot investigate the offence under the Act even though they are cognizable offences. Such an observation made by the Supreme court would indicate that there will have to be a special police officer who can investigate the crime and then the assistant police officers also can conduct the investigation of the crime. Here, the detection and registering of the crime were done by the Sub INspector of Police who is not a special police officer appointed under S. 13 (1) of the Act.