MANOJ SHAW Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to our earlier direction, Investigating Officer is personally present before this court. His presence is noted and dispensed with.

(2.) We have perused the report filed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. He has stated in his report as follows:-

(3.) The report also encloses the order dated 13th June, 2019 and the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor in the instant case on that day. The explanation given by the judicial officer, therefore, runs counter to the report submitted by the Investigating Officer to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Kolkata Police wherein it is stated that the learned Chief Judge verbally directed the Investigating Officer to issue notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although the report of the judicial officer states that the Investigating Officer i.e. Inspector, Bhaskar Majumder was not present during hearing, it is contended before us that the said Investigating Officer was, in fact, present in court on that day. Hence, it appears that there are substantial variations with regard to the events which occurred before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 13th June, 2019 at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner as per the report of the judicial officer on the one hand and that of the Investigating Officer on the other hand. It is contended before us that the victims were major and the graver penalty under Sections 3 & 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are not attracted. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the victims were induced to prostitution against their will and therefore, the graver penalty under Section 5 of the said Act is not attracted.