The court ruled mandatory compliance with statutory provisions is essential in detaining individuals under the Immoral Traffic Act to uphold legal safeguards.

1. These are three Revision Petitions Nos. 219/94, 227/94 and 10/95 preferred by Miss. Sangita, Mrs. Usha Singh, Mrs. Pooja and Rekha. Besides the above, Mrs. Usha also filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 872/94. All the aforesaid petitions are being taken up together as they raise the same pleas and legal issues which can be disposed of by a common judgment and order.

2. Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petitions are as under : that Inspector P. L. Suri, S. H. O. PS Kamla Market was present at G. B. Road along with a lady constable and staff in connection with his usual patrolling duty during the night of June 12, 1994. He received a secret in formation that certain minor girls were indulging in prostitution in premises No. 5216, G. B. Road, Delhi. On receipt of the said information, he organised a raiding party and included therein two members of the public known as Rajesh Chawla r/o 2860/3, and Mrs. Sneh Srivastava r/o 107/1, Railway Colony, Thomson Road, Special Police Officer of PS Kamla Market. The abovesaid premises were searched which resulted in the recovery of nine girls from the said premises including the present petitioners. All of them were produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who after conducting an enquiry under S. 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience) ordered the detention of the petitioners i.e. Usha Singh, Sangita, Pooja and Rekha for a period of three years in a protective home through his judgment and order dated August 16, 1994.

3. The petitioners on being dissatisfied with the abovesaid order approached the Court of Session. The appeals were dismissed vide order dated October 17, 1994.

4. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Courts below, inter alia, on the following grounds : that the raiding party was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of S. 13 and S. 15(6 - A) of the Act inasmuch as it did not include two lady Police Officers. The interrogation was not done in the presence of a lady member of a recognised welfare institution. The constitution of the tribunals was also not valid and legal inasmuch as it was in flagrant disregard of the mandatory provisions of S. 17(5) of the Act. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show and prove that there was sexual exploitation or abuse of the petitioners for commercial purposes. The case of the petitioners does not fall within the domain of S. 2(g) of the Act. Hence no action could have been taken against the petitioners.

6. Learned Public Prosecutors have urged to the contrary.

7. It has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate who was working as a. tribunal for the purposes of limited jurisdiction was not assisted at the relevant time by a panel of five respectable persons as envisaged by S. 17(5) of the Act. It thus as a corollary whereof rendered nugatory the entire proceedings before the learned Magistrate since a duty has been cast on the shoulders of the Magistrate to have the assistance of the panel of five respectable persons while discharging his functions under Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 17. Thus, the learned Magistrate was left with no option but to seek the assistance of the said panel comprised of five persons as provided under S. 17(5) while discharging his functions under the said Section. The learned PPs, on the other hand, have contended that it was not incumbent on the Magistrate to seek the assistance of a panel of five