Petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, is charge sheeted in respect of the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for brevity) read with Sections 366A and 372 read with Section 34 of IPC. Now the matter is committed to the Sessions Court.

2. The gist of the prosecution story is, on a credible information about ongoing prostitution, the Circle Inspector with his staff and panchas raided one Arunodaya Residency Lodge on the night of 27.8.2010 and found that the accused No.1 had procured minor girls CW2 and 3 and lured CW4 with money and had sent them for prostitution through accused No.2 to the Lodge, thus was carrying on prostitution with the aid of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5.

3. Sri.S.Chetan Nag, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, CW1/C.P.I., Nelamangala, is not a designated Special Police Officer under Section 13 of the Act. On the basis of the Search Order dated 27.8.2010 issued to him by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nelamangala, he sent CW8/decoy witness, CW7/public person for investigation. Subsequent thereto, he conducted raid on the said Lodge and apprehended eight accused persons including the petitioner herein. CW15/P.S.I. (Law and Order), Madanayakanahalli, though not a designated Special Officer under Section 13 of the Act got registered the case in respect of the alleged offences and arrested all the eight accused persons. He made requisitions to the jurisdictional Court to treat the accused Nos.1 to 3 as victims of the incident and thereafter filed charge sheet against four accused persons. The first accused is shown as absconding. The learned Magistrate without application of mind about the procedural irregularities has taken cognizance of the matter, thereby the consequential charge sheet is vitiated. Assuming that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nelamangala, is the Special Police Officer under Section 13 of the Act, the order dated 27.8.2010 issued by him to C.P.I., Nelamangala though captioned as “search order”, virtually is an order to conduct the raid. It was not an order enabling the P.S.I. to arrest the person without warrant. The order passed by the Dy.S.P. is illegal and against the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act. The search is not conducted in front of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality. As per the medical certificate, the victims/accused Nos.1 to 3 are above 18 years. Hence, no case under Sections 366A and 372 of IPC is made out.

4. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the second respondent has placed on record the notification, notifying Special Officers under the Act in the State, which is as below:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act X of 1897) and in supersession of all the notifications issued earlier in this behalf the Government of Karnataka here by appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule below as Special Police Officer in respect of the areas specified in the corresponding entries within the jurisdiction mentioned in column (3) for the purpose of the said Act:

Sl. No.	Officers	Area
(1)	(2)	(3)
1.	Superintendents of Police In charge of the Districts	Within their respective jurisdiction
2.	Additional Superintendents of Police	Within their respective jurisdiction
3.	Sub-­Divisional Police Officers	Within their respective jurisdiction
4.	Inspector of Police In charge of Circles	Within their respective jurisdiction
5.	Deputy Commissioners of Police, law and order East, West and DCP Crime in Bangalore City	Within their respective jurisdiction
6.	Assistant Commissioners of Police of Divi