Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Police Inspector, Girinagar Police Station, Bangalore, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec..370(3) and 370A(2) r/w Sec.34 of IPC in Crime No.62/2015.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that :-

The accused No.1 and 2 were running prostitution business at residential house bearing No.41, situated at 17th A Main, Srinivasanagara, BSK I stage, within the limits of Girinagar P.S., Bangalore by trafficking CW.4 and CW.5 with the false assurance of getting job at Bangalore, and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and were leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business. On 11.02.2015 at 4.30 p.m. the complainant along with panchas and his staff conducted raid after obtaining credible information and apprehended accused persons, who were involved in the prostitution business, rescued CW.4 and CW.5 and at that time seized Mobile phones, condoms and cash from the spot through panchanama. Thereby the accused No.1 and 2 are alleged with the offences punishable U/s.370(3) and 370(A)(2) r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

4.The charge was framed against the accused No.1 and 2 on 16.01.2020 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC. The accused No.1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined in all three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.5, and identified Mos1 to 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up the witnesses CW.6, CW.7 CW.9, CW.10 and CW.12 on 08.02.2022, in view of the evidence of other police official witnesses, as repetition witnesses. In spite of sufficient opportunities provided to the prosecution by issuing summons, warrant and proclamation for securing CW.2 to CW.4, but the concerned police failed to secure the said witnesses and in view of the same on 24.02.2022 and on 4.1.2022 the evidence of CW.2 to CW.4 was taken as nil by rejecting the prayer of the prosecution. Further the prosecution has not taken any steps to secure the witnesses CW.2 to CW.4, in view of the same dropping of evidence of CW.2 to CW.4 remained intact.

1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 and 2 a were running prostitution business at residential house bearing No.41, situated at 17th A Main, Srinivasanagara, BSK I stage, within the limits of Girinagar P.S., Bangalore by trafficking CW.4 and CW.5 with the false assurance of getting job at Bangalore, and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and were leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?

15.At this juncture I would like to refer the provision of Sec.13(2) of the ITP Act, 1956, wherein it is mandatory that the investigation has to be done by Special Officer and an Advisory body i.e., the Special Police Officer, who shall not be, below the rank of Police Inspector, having authority to investigate the case and file charge sheet. In the instant case the I.O., PW.3 has not produced any document to show that he is appointed as a Special Officer and having the rank of Police Inspector in the Department having authority to investigate cases pertaining to ITP Act,, 1956. The evidence of PW.3 clearly discloses that he being in the rank of Police Sub-Inspector, who had registered the case, recored the statements of the witnesses and after completing investigation filed charge sheet. It is the specific defense of the accused that the witness PW.3 who had investigated the case has no authority as per the provisions of ITP Act to investigate the case since he was working under the rank of PSI, below the rank of Police Inspector. At this context it is worth to note a decision of Hon'ble High Court regarding the said mandate of the Act reported in Shankaregowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru and others reported in ILR 2016 Kar 3067 , wherein it is held that:-