Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : These six appeals filed by certificates granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad raise the question of the vires of S. 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), hereinafter called the Act.

2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The respondents are alleged to be prostitute carrying on their trade in the City of Kanpur. On receiving information from the Sub-Inspector of Police, who is not a Special Police Officer, the City Magistrate, Kanpur, issued notices to the respondents under S. 20(1) of the Act to show cause why they should not be required to remove themselves from the places where they were residing and be prohibited from re-entering them. The respondents received the notices and filed objections claiming that the proceedings were not legally maintainable. The learned City Magistrate repelled the said objections. Against the orders of the Magistrate the respondents went up in revision to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, but the same were dismissed. Thereafter the respondents preferred revisions to the High Court of judicature at Allahabad and the said High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the proceedings pending against the respondents in the Court of the City Magistrate, Kanpur. The High Court held that S. 20 of the Act abridged the fundamental rights of the respondents under Art. 14 and sub-cls. (d) and (e) of Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution. After obtaining certificates for leave to appeal from the High Court, the present appeals have been preferred by the State.

3. As the argument turns upon the provisions of S. 20 of the Act, it will be convenient at the outset to read it.

Section 20. (1) A Magistrate on receiving information that any woman or girl residing in or frequenting any place within the local limits of his jurisdiction is a prostitute, may record the substance of the information received and issue a notice to such woman or girl requiring her to appears before the Magistrate and show cause why she should not be required to remove herself from the place and be prohibited from re-entering it.

(2) Every notice issued under sub-sec. (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the record aforesaid, and the copy shall be served along with the notice on the woman or girl against whom the notice is issued.

(3) The Magistrate shall, after the service of the notice referred to in sub-sec. (2), proceed to inquire into the truth of the information received, and after giving the woman or girl an opportunity of adducing evidence, take such further evidence as he thinks fit, and if upon such inquiry it appears to him that such woman or girl is a prostitute and that it is necessary in the interests of the general public that such woman or girl should be required to remove herself therefrom and be prohibited from re-entering the same, the Magistrate shall, by order in writing communicated to the woman or girl in the manner specified therein, require her after a date (to be specified in the order) which shall not be less than seven days from the date of the order, to remove herself from the place to such place whether within or without the local limits of his jurisdiction, by such route or routes and within such time as may be specified in the order and also prohibit her from re-entering the place without the permission in writing of the Magistrate having jurisdiction over such place.

The first question raised is whether the information received enabling a Magistrate under S. 20 of the Act to make the enquiry provided there under should be only from a special police officer designated under S. 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act says that there shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences under this Act in that area. The post of special police officer is created under the Act for dealing with offences u