The court affirmed prosecution validity against the appellant under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, based on sufficient evidence, rejecting claims of officer incompetence.

O R D E R

The first accused in C.C.No.1387/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against him in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that in the inspection conducted by the Inspector of Police, Njarakkal, at the homestay run by the first accused at Pallipuram Village at about 09:45 p.m., on 12.04.2013, the fourth accused was found to have been involved in prostitution with accused Nos.2 & 3. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein had been conducting the above homestay for the activities of immoral traffic.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against him. It is further contended that CW2 was not an empowered officer to conduct search at the premises of the homestay run by the petitioner and to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short, ‘Act’).

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The prosecution records would clearly reveal that in the search conducted by the Inspector of Police, Njarakkal, at the homestay run by the petitioner, the accused No.4 was found to have been involved in prostitution with the accused Nos.2 & 3. The Inspector of Police, Njarakkal, being the empowered officer under Section 13 (2) of the Act, there is absolutely no basis for the contention that the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner is bad for the incompetence of the officer who initiated the proceedings.

6. As per Section 5 (1)(a) of the Act, any person who procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution, is liable for the punishment provided thereunder. As far as the present case is concerned, the prosecution records would clearly reveal that the petitioner had procured the fourth accused in his homestay for the purpose of prostitution, and that she had indulged in prostitution with accused Nos.2 & 3 at the time when the Inspector of Police, Njarakkal, conducted the inspection in that homestay. Therefore, the offence under of the Act is clearly brought out from the prosecution records as against the petitioner. There is absolutely no point in the argument that the prosecution records would not bring out the offences alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, is devoid of merit.

In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(Sd/-)