1. Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.330 of 1998 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station and C.C.No.595 of 2002 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Secs.3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act"). The case is that on 21.11.1998 at about 4.30p.m the first accused, in order to earn a livelihood by using her house as a brothel, brought accused 2 and 3 to her house and accused 2 and 3 attempted to have sexual intercourse with petitioner for profit and thereby petitioner and others committed offences as alleged. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that detection of the offence and investigation are wholly illegal and at any rate, offence under Secs.3, 4 and 5 of the Act cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Sing (AIR 1962 SC 63) and Sainudeen Vs. Sub Inspector of Police (2002(1) KLT 693) and an unreported decision of this Court dated December 10, 2009 in Crl.M.C.No.3533 of 2009. I have heard learned Public Pros