RENUKA DURGAPPA KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date this Writ petition was heard finally. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. It appears that the Inspector of Police, local Crime Branch, Kolhapur conducted raid on 07th May, 2006 at 15. 35 hours at a place opposite Mayur Petrol Pump, Gokul-Shirgaon, pune-Banglore Highway, Kolhapur. The allegation of the police is that at the time of raid it was found that the said premises was being used as a brothel. An offence was registered under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1956). The offence was registered against one Kamalabai waghmare and four others. At the time of raid, 33 women were found who were allegedly indulging in prostitution. On 07th May, 2006 the saiid 33 victims were sent to Tejasvini Mahila sudhargriha, Sambhaji Nagar, Kolhapur. An application was made on behalf of said victims on 16th May, 2006 before the learned Judicial magistrate (First Class) , Kolhapur for release. It appears that on 09th May, 2006 the learned judicial Magistrate called for the report of the district Probation Officer. On 16th May, 2006 the learned Judge directed that the said victims may be medically examined and a report be submitted. Accordingly, a report was submitted and it was found that none of them were suffering from any disease.

(2.) On 23rd May, 2006 the learned judicial Magistrate passed an order directing that the said 33 victims be detained in Navjeevan mahila Vasatigriha, Chembur, Mumbai for a period of one year from 23rd May, 2006. Separate Appeals were preferred against the said order by the said 33 victims before the Sessions court. The said Appeals have been dismissed by order dated 10th July, 2006. The orders dated 23rd May, 2006 and 10th July, 2006 are challenged in this Petition under Article 2127 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is filed by the said 33 victims.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner invited my attention to the report of the District Probation Officer and the findings recorded by the courts. He pointed out that mandatory procedural requirements of the said Act of 1956 were not complied with. He submitted that report of the Probation Officer shows that the entire approach of the officer was erroneous and he has treated the victims of the offence as accused persons. He submitted that as there is non-compliance with statutory requirements, the order of detaining the victims in Navjeevan Mahila Vasatigriha is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set. aside.