Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370(A)(2) of IPC, before the jurisdictional XXIV Addl.,CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused. The same is numbered as SC No.98/2018 in this Court.

4.The charge was framed against the accused on 30.09.2019 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused was running prostitution business at house bearing No.318, situated No.318 situated at 3rd Cross, I Main, Hrushikeshanagara, Hosakerehalli, BSK III Stage near Madhu Soundarya Women Beatuy saloon situated at 9th Main Road, Krishnaiah Layout, Poornaprajna Nagara, Uttarahalli, within the limits of Girinagar P.S., Bangalore, by trafficking CW.12 and CW.13 with the false assurance of getting job at Bangalore, and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and were leading her life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business and thereby the accused has committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?

Sec.15(2) before making a search under sub- section(1), the special police officer(or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be) shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants(at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do:

It is crystal clear from the provisions of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act, 1956 that it mandates that two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated has to be called them for panchanama, out of them at least one of them shall be a women residing in the said locality. In the instant case the panch witnesses, who were cited are male persons, and were not examined by the prosecution. Even in the cross-examination of I.O., non-examination the local Women pancha in spite of admission from the witnesses that the raided spot is densely populated makes it crystal clear that the mandatory provision of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act is not complied. It is equally important to note that though the incidental spot is a public place adjoining to commercial shops, non citing of the local persons as a witness by the Investigating Officer_PW.2 also creates a doubt in the prosecution case regarding the conduct of raid and and apprehending of the accused along with the victims CW.12 and CW.13 who were forced to indulging committing prostitution and seizure of MOs1 and 2 is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

18.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 PW.6 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.6 clearly discloses that he being in the rank of Police Sub-Inspector, who had registered the case and recored the statements of the witnesses during investigation and handed over further investigation to PW.1, in turn he has filed charge sheet only based on the investigation of PW.6. It is the specific defense of the accused that the witness PW.6 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:-