Expression "dealing with offences" includes investigation also.

This is an application to quash the charge framed by the District Magistrate of Chingleput. Three charges have been framed against the accused ; namely, for offences under sections 3 (1), 4( 1) and 6 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. There is no dispute about the fact that the Police Officer who investigated into this case is an Inspector of Police. In fact nothing has been alleged against the Inspector of Police as such, but the point that is raised is that under the above Act the Officer who can deal with an offence under section 13 should be of not less than the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the moffussal according to the provisions of section 13(2) (c) and inasmuch as this investigation has been conducted by an Inspector of Police, who is below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, the whole investigation becomes illegal and the Court should not, therefore, proceed with the trial of this case based upon the illegal investigation.

Act CIV of 1956 under which the accused is sought to be prosecuted came into force on 1st May, 1958. It is obvious that in the moffassal the Police were not aware of this Act and they were proceeding under the prior Act which was in force in this State. But by the time they could conclude the investigation and file a charge-sheet the coming into force of Act CIV of 1956 had come to their knowledge and therefore, they filed a charge-sheet for offences under this Act.

Offences under the above Act have been made cognizable by section 14 of the Act. Under the Proviso to that section the arrest of the accused can only be made by the Special Police Officer or under his direction or guidance or subject to his prior approval. Similarly, under section 15 it is only the Special Police Officer that can make a search into the premises. As to who is a ‘Special Police Officer is mentioned in section 13 of the Act and that section says:

“There shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a Special Police Officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences under this Act in that area”.

By clause (2) the Special Police Officer shall not be below the rank of (a) an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the Presidency Towns of Madras and Calcutta. (b) a Superintendent of Police in the Presidency Town of Bombay; and (c) a Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere. The offences in this case are alleged to have been committed at a place outside the limits of the Original Jurisdiction of Madras and, therefore, the Special Officer shall be the Deputy Superintendent of Police’ This section says that the appointment of a Special Police Officer is for dealing with offences under this Act. As stated earlier, the investigation in this case undoubtedly was conducted by an Inspector of Police about whose impartiality nothing has been alleged. But as a point of law it is contended that section 13 having provided that it is the Special Police Officer that should deal with offences and the Special Police Officer in this area being the Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed for the purpose, any investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police must be considered to be an illegal one, and, therefore, the charge framed on the report filed by the Police under the provisions of section 251(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unsustainable.

The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that under section 14 of the Act:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, any offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of that Code;”

and, therefore, when once under section 14, offences under this Act are made cognizable, it means that any Police Officer can investigate into this offence, subject to the limitations contained in the Proviso and also under section 15 of the Act, the limitation being that the arrest shall not be made exce