A.M. Babu, J.

A criminal prosecution is sought to be quashed. The relief is sought under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioners 1 and 2 were accused 2 and 3 respectively in C.C.1016/2005. That was a case on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram. The accused persons were charged under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The first accused died. The petitioners absconded just before they were to be examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The fourth accused was acquitted. The case against the petitioners was refiled as C.C.1230/2010. All further proceedings therein are sought to be quashed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard the learned public prosecutor.

4. Altogether there were four accused persons. One died. Others were tried. The petitioners absconded pending trial. The fourth accused stood trial till the end. He was acquitted. Acquittal of a co-accused by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings against any other accused.

5. Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (ILR 2006(1) Ker 237). It is a full bench decision of this court. The decision holds that the judgment rendered in the case of a co-accused is not to be taken into account when another accused seeks to quash the proceedings against him. The full bench holds that the said general rule is subject to an exception. The exception is held to apply where the very substratum of the case is lost. Is this such a case is the question.

6. The petitioners and others were charged under Secs 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act. The first petitioner is a woman. The petitioners and the first accused allegedly occupied a room in a lodge for prostitution. They were allegedly seen by the police half-naked and engaged in embracing and kissing. The search in the lodge was conducted and the accused persons were arrested by the sub-inspector of Kottakkal police station. The fourth accused was acquitted by the learned magistrate holding that a sub-inspector was incompetent to conduct any search and detect commission of any offence under the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act are to be considered.

7. A police officer appointed by the central government under Section 13 (4) of the Act is a trafficking police officer as defined in Section 2(j). The central government appoints trafficking police officers under Section 13(4) for the purpose of investigating offences committed in more than one state. The present case does not relate to any offence committed in more than one state. Hence Secs 2(j) and 13(4) are not relevant in the present case. The powers of the trafficking police officers are also not relevant here.

8. The provisions to be read are Secs 2 (i), 13, 14 and 15 of the Act. Section 2 (i) defines a special police officer. Special police officer means a police officer appointed by or on behalf of a state government to be in charge of police duties within a specified area for the purpose of the Act. Section 13(1) insists on the appointment of special police officers by or on behalf of every state government for dealing with offences under the Act in the respective areas to be specified by that government. The special police officer shall not be below the rank of an inspector of police as provided in Section 13 (2). All offences punishable under the Act shall be deemed to be cognisable offences within the meaning of Cr.P.C as Section 14 of the Act declares. But every police officer is not competent to arrest without warrant a person committing or alleged to have committed an offence under the Act. Every police officer is not authorised to conduct searches also. The proviso to Section 14 states who can arrest an offender without a warrant. Section 15 states who can conduct a search without a warrant and when. Section 15 and the proviso to Section 14 give the respective powers to the special police officer. The proviso to Section 14, of course, authorises a non-special police officer to effe