STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAINABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquital of the respondent in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur, of an offence under section 3 and 4 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women Girls Act, 1956. It was alleged against the accused that she kept and managed brothel where two other women as her inmates were lodged and that she was living on the earnings of those women's prostitution. Along with the accused the two who were so used were also tried. The respondent was charged for contravening section 3 (1) and section 4 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to the case of the other two accused. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge against her. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Barsi, before whom she was put up, accepted this plea of guilty and convicted her of the offences with which she was charged and sentenced her to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10/- for each offence. He directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE accused went in appeal to the Sessions Court and the appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge at Sholapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that inasmuch as the investigation was carried on by an officer who had no authority to do so, there was no basis for the prosecution, and therefore the conviction was illegal. Though he negatived the contention of the accused that the plea recorded by the Magistrate was not genuine, as the other two points were answered in her favour, he acquitted her of these offences.

(3.) THE learned Judge relied upon sections 13 and 14 of the Act for his conclusion. The view of the learned Judge finds support in the decision of the Supreme Court of the 3rd of May, 1961 in the case of Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1960 : (AIR 1962 SC 63) The accused was sought to be prosecuted under section 8 of the Act. The investigation was made by a Sub-Inspector of Police. After the investigation was completed, he filed a chargesheet before the Magistrate. On objection being taken to the investigation, the Magistrate quashed the charge-sheet holding that the Special Officer, was alone competent to investigate the case and that the Sub-Inspector could not have investigated it: It was held by K. Subba Rao and Raghubar Dayal, JJ. That: