SHAKILA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this reference is "whether a magistrate is competent to file a complaint against a person suspected of having committed an offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (104 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act."

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that at about 9 p.m. on the 18th March 1959, Sri B. N. Rai, a Magistrate of the 1st Glass, Kanpur, found the applicant soliciting persons by words, gestures and wilful exposure of her person, for the purpose of prostitution. He placed her under arrest and filed a complaint for her prosecution under Section 8 of the Act. An objection was made by the applicant in court against her prosecution challenging the validity of the complaint on the ground that she could only have been prosecuted on a charge sheet submitted by a 'special police officer', appointed under the Act and not on a complaint filed by the Magistrate. Her objection was overruled by the trial court and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld that order in revision. She then filed a revision to this Court, out of which this reference has arisen.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has raised two contentions before us; firstly, that a 'special police officer' appointed under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, can alone initiate prosecution in respect of offences mentioned thereunder, and secondly, that the Act being a self contained enactment it was not permissible to enlarge the powers of a magistrate by reference to the provisions of the Cr. P. C., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').