SHYAM KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by Shyam Kumari and 18 others with a prayer that the charge-sheet relating to Crime Nos. 52 to 71 of 1982, P.S. Kotwali, District Mirzapur and the Criminal cases pending in their pursuance in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur may be quashed.

(2.) THE applicants are prosecuted under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic of Women and Girls Act 1956 in pursuance of a raid that was carried on 26-2-1982 and the F.I.R. lodged. It is urged that the applicants are respectable members of the society and profess the art of singing and dancing and do not indulge in immoral traffic. It is a question of fact and can be looked into by the trial court itself when trial is proceeding and this Court will not consider the questions of fact. It is further urged that the provisions of Section 15 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic of Women and Girls Act were not complied with and they are mandatory and the whole proceeding is vitiated. THE person who conducted the raid has not been examined yet. He would be the best person to be cross examined concerning compliance or noncompliance of the aforesaid provisions and he would also be in a position to explain in case of any noncompliance why such compliance is not possible. Reliance was placed upon two cases, namely A.I.R. 1964 Punjab, 4361 and A.I.R 1965 Andhra Pradesh 1762. THE plea was raised after the trial was concluded and all the evidence had been recorded so it is distinguishable on the facts. Powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code will not be exercised in cases in which trial has already started and the pleas raised here can well be raised before the trial court itself. This is all the more necessary when the matter of prejudice is to be also examined. Any defect or irregularily in investigation, however, serious, bas no direct bearing on the competency of the procedure relating to cognizance or trial of an offence. Besides Section 537 of Criminal Procedure Code is important and it has to be shown that irregularily or illegality in investigation bas brought about the miscarriage of justice. Non-compliance of requirements of Section 15 would not necessarily vitiate the entire proceedings and trial and the matter will depend upon the facts brought to light in course of trial and evidence. In the case of Bai Radha v. THE State of Gujrat3 this view has been taken while dealing with Section 15 of the aforesaid Act. I am bound by the Supreme Court view. It is Dot a fit case for interference. THE application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is dismissed. Application dismissed.