( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned order of conviction dated 10th January, 2002 and order on sentence dated 1st February, 2002 passed by learned ASJ whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (for short the Act ) and was sentenced to undergo rl for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, imprisonment for five months for the offence under Section 3 of the Act and to undergo Rl for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 4 of the Act in case SC. No. 298/01 FIR no. 94/2001 PS Kamla Market, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated the facts leading to the appeal are that on 25th February, 2001 at about 9. 30 P. M. Sl V. P. Jha, Police Station Kamla Market was on patrolling duty in the area and when they reached at Chowk Nihariyan alongwith H. C. Makhan singh, Lady Constable Pulkira, he received a secret information that some girls were illegally confined in Kotha No. 50, G. B. Road. On receipt of this information, sl V. P. Jha alongwith the Constables reached kotha No. 50, G. B. Road. On enquiry, he came to know that one girl was forcibly confined on the first floor. Girl namely Allivellu met the police officials and told them that she had been forcibly confined there. Girl was speaking Telgu. Sl V. P. Jha called constable K. Anand who knew the said language. With the help of Constable K. Anand, Sl V. P. Jha recorded the statement of Allivellu. Sl V. P. Jha got the case registered and thereafter on the pointing out of Allivellu Sl apprehended both the accused persons namely Nagina and Mumtaj and they were arrested. Statement of Allivellu was got recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate. After completing investigations, challan was tiled against Nagina and Mumtaj under Sections 342/323/363/368/373/109/506/34, IPC and under Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Act. Learned ASJ framed charges under Sections 368/373/363/342/323/506, IPC against both the accused persons. They were also charged separately under Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Act. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. In order to prove its version, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. After consideration, learned ASJ convicted Nagina for the offences under Sections 368/373/363/342/322/506, IPC and also 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. Appellant Mumtaj was convicted only under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and sentenced as stated earlier. Present appeal has been filed by Mumtaj only.

( 3 ) THE first and foremost challenge of learned counsel for the appellant was as to legality and validity of entire process of raid, arrest, investigation and prosecution of the appellant. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that Section 13 of the Act mandates State Government to appoint Special Police Officer for dealing with the offences under the Act. Such Special Police Officer shall not be below the rank of an Inspector of Police. Further Section 15 of the Act requires that search and arrest can be carried out only by the Special Police Officer or some officer subordinate to him and authorised by him in writing. In the present case, Sl V. P. Jha who conducted search, investigations and arrested the accused persons, did not have the power of Special Police Officer and therefore all proceedings conducted by him are illegal and unauthorised. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh, AIR 1963 SC 63 wherein the facts where that the respondent who was suspected of having committed an offence under Section 8 of the Act was prosecuted vide challan filed by Sub Inspector who had not been appointed as Special Police Officer by the State Government. The Magistrate quashed the charge sheets holding that the Sl was not competent to investigate the case. On revision by the State, High Court agreed with the view of the Magistrate and dismis