The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invalidity of the investigation does not automatically nullify the trial unless it can be shown that a miscarriage of justice has been caused.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against Respondent No.1 on the ground that Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation was not authorized to do so under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act).

3. The case of the prosecution is that a raid was conducted on the night of 27th August, 2010 in a lodge and it was found that Respondent No.1 had procured minor girls and sent them for prostitution through his co-accused. He was indulging in prostitution with the aid of co-accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act read with Sections 366A, 372 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 20th August, 2011.

4. The Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The charges were framed on 23rd April, 2015.

5. The prosecution examined PW-1 on 14th July, 2015 but the cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred at the request of Respondent No.1.

6. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 482 Cr.PC before the High Court on the ground that Investigating Officer was not competent to investigate. He was not a Special Police Officer covered by notification issued by the Government of Karnataka under the Act. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration versus Ram Singh, (1962) 2 SCR 694, AIR 1962 SC 63.

7. The High Court allowed the petition as follows:-

“4. The investigation since not steered by Special Officer appointed by Section 13 of the Act is illegal and vitiated, though the trial has already begun, having noticed the basic infirmity allowing the proceedings to continue any more is abuse of the process of the Court itself. On that count, the petition is liable to be quashed under the jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in S.C.No. 219/2013 pending on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.”

8. No doubt, this Court in Ram Singh (supra) held by majority that the Act was a complete code and certain provisions of the Act could not be complied with by the regular police. Arrest without warrant may be made only by Special Police Officer under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act and not by a regular police. Search without a warrant can also be done only by a Special Police Officer. Thus, only a Special Police Officer could conduct the investigation.

9. However, this conclusion was not enough for the High Court to quash the proceedings. It is well settled law that even if investigation is not conducted by authorized officer, the trial is not initiated unless a prejudice is shown.

10. In H.N. Rishbud and Anr. versus State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196, (1955) 1 SCR 1150 the question considered by this Court was whether after the court takes cognizance, trial can be held to be initiated merely on the ground that investigation was invalid. Answering in the negative, this Court held that if the plea of invalidity of investigation is raised at sufficiently early stage, the court, instead of taking cognizance direct reinvestigation by competent investigating officer. But, after cognizance is taken the trial cannot be quashed for invalidity of investigation.

11. The observations in the said judgment are:-

“9. The question then requires to be considered whether and to what extent the trial which follows such investigation is vitiated. Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in respect of cognizable cases. But it does not necessarily follow that an invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based thereon. Here we are not concerned with the effect of the breach of a mandatory provision regulating the competence or procedure of the Court as regards cognizance or trial. It is only with reference