Joymalya Bagchi, J.

The judgment and order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Lalbagh, Murshidabad in S.S.L No. 44/07 – S.T. No. 11 of February 2008 – G.R. 764/04, T.R. 314/05 acquitting the respondents for commission of offence punishable under Section 3/4/5/6/7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956.

The prosecution case is to the effect that opposite party no.6 runs a hotel named and styled as Arnapurna Hotel situated at Ajimganj City, near Ajimganj Railway Station, Police Station – Jiaganj, District – Murshidabad. It is alleged that local people had made complaints against such immoral activities of opposite party no.6. On the basis of such complaint, raid was conducted at the premises by Sri Bhaskar Goswami, C.I. of Police, Lalbagh, Murshidabad on 12.01.2004 at about 14:30 hours along with other Officers attached to Jiaganj Police Station. In course of raid it was found that opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 had been procured by the opposite party no.6 for the purpose of carrying on prostitution in the said Hotel and the opposite party nos.4 and 5 were found to be present in the said Hotel as customers. The raiding party arrested the aforesaid persons, seized incriminating articles from the Hotel and on the basis of the written complaint of Bhaskar Goswami, C.I. of Police, Lalbagh, Murshidabad Jiaganj Police Station Case No. 63 of 2004 dated 13.10.2004 under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 was registered for investigation.

In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 83/2004 dated 26.12.2004 under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) was submitted before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lalbagh, Murshidabad. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Lalbagh, Murshidabad for trial and disposal.

Charges were framed under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Act of 1956 against the opposite party nos.2 to 6 herein. The opposite party nos.2 to 6 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The trial Court, however, by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the opposite party nos.2 to 6 herein of the charges, as aforesaid.

Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of acquittal was patently illegal, perverse and contrary to law, inasmuch as, as the prosecution case was thrown out on the ground that the Investigating Officer Debabrata Dubey, Inspector-of-Police (PW-10) was not competent to investigate offences under the Act of 1956 in view of Section 13 of the said Act.

Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta supported such submission and submitted that such finding of the learned Court below was incorrect in view of the Notification dated 27th September, 1996 issued on behalf of the Government of India in exercise of power under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act empowering all Police officers not below the rank of Inspector-of-Police as Special Police Officers to investigate offences under the said Act.

In spite of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

I have examined the materials on record including the impugned judgment.

Although there is a general discussion of the evidence on record, the issue which primarily weighed with the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused persons was that investigation was not conducted by a competent agency in the instant case. Such proposition of law is contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of H. N. Rishbud – Vs. - State of Delhi reported in A.I.R. 1955 SC 196 (paragraph 9).

In the said report the Apex Court held that the illegality in the course of investigation would not vi