JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) This is an appeal by the State against the acquital of the respondent in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur, of an offence under section 3 and 4 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women Girls Act, 1956. It was alleged against the accused that she kept and managed brothel where two other women as her inmates were lodged and that she was living on the earnings of those womens prostitution. Along with the accused the two who were so used were also tried. The respondent was charged for contravening section 3(1) and section 4 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to the case of the other two accused. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge against her. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Barsi, before whom she was put up, accepted this plea of guilty and convicted her of the offences with which she was charged and sentenced her to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10/- for each offence. He directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2) The accused went in appeal to the Sessions Court and the appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge at Sholapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that inasmuch as the investigation was carried on by an officer who had no authority to do so, there was no basis for the prosecution, and therefore the conviction was illegal. Though he negatived the contention of the accused that the plea recorded by the Magistrate was not genuine, as the other two points were answered in her favour, he acquitted her of these offences.

(3) The learned Judge relied upon sections 13 and 14 of the Act for his conclusion. The view of the learned Judge finds support in the decision of the Supreme Court of the 3rd of May, 1961 in the case of Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1960 : (AIR 1962 SC 63) The accused was sought to be prosecuted under section 8 of the Act. The investigation was made by a Sub-Inspector of Police. After the investigation was completed, he filed a chargesheet before the Magistrate. On objection being taken to the investigation, the Magistrate quashed the charge-sheet holding that the Special Officer, was alone competent to investigate the case and that the Sub-Inspector could not have investigated it: It was held by K. Subba Rao and Raghubar Dayal, JJ. That:

"The special Police Officer is competent to investigate and that he and his assistant police officers are the only persons competent to investigate offences under the Act and that police officers not specially appointed as special police officers cannot investigate the offences under the Act, even though they are cognizable offences."

Mr. Justice Mudholkar differed from the majority view. The appeal, therefore, came to be dismissed.

(4) This, however, does not end the matter. In the case before the Supreme Court the objection was taken at the initial stage and the accused was discharged. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on section 156(2) and section 529 of the Criminal Procedure Code and contends that even assuming that the investigation was illegal or irregular that cannot affect the jurisdiction of the Court. He relies on Rustom Ardeshir v. Emperor, 49 Bom LR 821: (AIR 1948 Bom 163), which supports his contention. It may be that if a person is illegally arrested he may be appropriate proceeding get himself released. It may be that if the action of the Police Officer is illegal or improper he may not be able to protect himself in a proceeding against him. And though the Court may strongly disapprove the illegality in the investigation "the question" as Lord Tenterden, C. J. Posed is:

" . . . . . . .Whether if a person charged with a crime is found in this country, it is the duty of the Court to take care that such a party shall be amenable to justice or whether we are to consider the circumstances under which he was brought here."

He answered it saying: "I thought, and I still continue to think, that we c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document