SMT. KAUSHILYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) confirming the order of the City Magistrate, Kanpur rejecting the objection of the accused-Applicant that proceedings initiated against her under Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are void and illegal.

(2.) The main objection raised on behalf of the Applicant was that Sri M.C. Rawat, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City-I) was not a validly appointed Special Police Officer for dealing with offences under the said Act. The learned Counsel submitted that special police officer' as defined in Clause (i) of Sec. 2 was a police officer appointed by or on behalf of the State Government to be in charge of police duties within a specified area for the purposes of this Act. By Sec. 13 only such special police officer as had been appointed by the State Government to perform duties in specified areas under the Act would have power to deal with offences under the Act. It was said that Sri Rawat had not been appointed by name as special police officer nor was there any order of the State Government specifying the area in which he was to act as such police officer. The above contention was based on the language of Sec. 13(1) which reads:

(3.) The next contention advanced by the learned Counsel was that the appointment of special police officer had to be made by name and not by virtue of the office held by him. Reference in this connection was made to Emperor Vs. Udho Chandulal, A.I.R. 1943 Sind 107 . That was a case in which the scope and meaning of Sec. 6(ii) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act came up for consideration. Under that Sec. entry in gambling houses could be made, among other persons, by Taluka Magistrate or by an Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police specially empowered by the State Government. On a construction of the language used in Sec. 6 it was held that the appointment of the officer concerned was required to be made by name and merely by virtue of his office. There is no provision analogous to Sec. 6 of the Bombay Gambling Act in the present Act.