G. Sasidharan, J.

This petition is filed by accused numbers 4 and 5 in Crime No. 312 of 2001 of Thrikkakkara Police Station registered under Sections 3, 4(1) and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakkara conducted a raid in the house of the first accusd where the petitioners were also present and alleging that they were condudting prostituion, arrested them. Crime was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakkara.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that before conducting raid in the house of the first accused, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakkara informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara about the information he got that prostitution was going on in the house of the first accused. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakkara sent a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police for giving sanction for raiding the house of the first accused and according to the learned Public Prosecutor, sanction was given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara. It was after getting sanction from the Assistant Commissioner, who as per the notification issued by the Government of Kerala is a Special Police Officer under the Act, the Sub Inspector of Police and the party, which included two women Police Constables went to the house of the first accused and conducted raid in that house.

3. At the time when the Police party reached the house of the first accused, accused No. 2 who is the wife of the first accused and the second petitioner were sitting in the dining hall in the house and from them the Sub Inspector of Police got information that the first petitioner (4th Accused) and the third accused were in the first floor of the building. Then the Sub Inspector of Police went to the first floor and found that the first petitioner and the 3rd accused were in a room locked from inside. It is stated that accused 1 and 6 were seen in another room. All the accused were arrested from there and they were taken to the Police Station.

4. According to the petitioners, the statement in the First Information Report will not disclose the commission of offences under Sections 3, 4(1) and 5 of the Act. It is also stated that the arrest of the petitioners and the other accused and search of the house were not properly conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakkara. It is maintained that the search of the house and also the arrest were not done as provided in theAct.

5. Section 14 of the Act says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, any offence punishable under the Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of that Code. The proviso to the above Section says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, arrest without warrant may be made only by the special police officer or under his direction or guidance or subject to his prior approval. The second proviso to the Section enjoins that when the Special Police Officer requires any officer subordinate to him to arrest without warrant otherwise then in his presence any person for an offence under the Act, he shall give that subordinate officer an order in writing specifying the person to be arrested and the offence for which the arrest is being made.

6. Here what is said is that before conducting the raid of the house of the first accused, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakkara sought permission of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara for conducting raid. The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the written request made by the Sub Inspector of Police was that sanction was given to the Sub Inspector of Police for taking suitable legal action after raiding the premises.

7. What is said in the second proviso to Section 14 is that for the purpose of arresting any person, an order in writing sp