JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:— Controversy in these appeals centres round the interpretation of the words "specially empowered" appearing in Sec. 2(c) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:

3. Chaturbhuj Maganlal and Bai Sabita, respondents herein, are husband and wife residing together at Parvati Bhuvan, Rajkot. Both of them together with Bai Hamida Basir Mohammed, respondent 3 herein, are accused 1, 2 and 3 respectively, in a trial for offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Rajkot in Cr. Cases Nos. 1372 and 1404 of 1968. When the trial was about to commence in these cases, 1699 the accused moved applications raising an objection that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the offences as he had not been "specially empowered" as required by Section 2 (c) of the Act. The Magistrate rejected those applications whereupon the accused went in revision before the Sessions Judge, Rajkot who dismissed the same.

4. Aggrieved the accused filed two revisions (Cr. R. 321 and 322 of 1969) in the High Court of Gujar