TARA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Smt. Tara against the Magistrate's order proceeding with the trial under Section 5 of the Suppression or immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and not quashing the charge sheet submitted by the police, which is a police report as contemplated by Section 173 (1), Crl. P. C. The police report was submitted by a police officer who was not a Special Police Officer appointed by or on behalf of the State Government under Section 13 (1) of the Act for dealing with offences under the Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the police report and when an objection was raised to his taking cognizance of the offence on such a police report, he proceeded with the trial on the ground that there was no legal bar to his taking cognizance of the offence on a report submitted by a police officer other than a Special Police Officer. The applicant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, but he dismissed the revision summarily, as in his opinion, the Supreme Court decision in Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh, AIR 1962 SC 63 did not lay down that Magistrates could not take cognizance of the offence under other clauses of Section 190 (1), Cri. P. C. The Sessions Judge placed reliance upon the observations of the Supreme Court in another case, H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, (S) AIR 1955 SC 196.

(2.) THE law as laid clown by the Supreme Court has to be followed, though in suitable circumstances where facts are different it may be distinguished or held not applicable. Courts of law shall not be justified to disregard the decision of the highest court of the country on insufficient grounds.

(3.) WHAT has been laid down in AIR 1962 SC 63 is that an offence under the Act can be investigated by Special Police Officers only in accordance with the Special Law, and not by any police officer under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the Magistrate can decline to take cognizance of a report submitted under Section 173 (1) Cr. P. U. by a police officer other than a Special Police Officer. There can thus he no controversy that the trial Magistrate could have refused to take cognizance of the present police report.