Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s.370 IPC and U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, before the jurisdictional X 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 persons. The same was numbered as SC No.1233/2017.

4.The charge was framed against the accused No.2 to 4 on 05.04.2021 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable that on 1.3.2015 at 16.00 hours found that the accused No.2 to 5 along with others at House No.41, situated at I Cross, Manjunathnagar, Kalkere, within the limits of Ramamurthynagar P.S., Bangalore, by trafficking CW.4 to CW.6 with the assurance of getting job, induced and indulged them in SC No.1233/2017 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.2 to 4 have committed an offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?

SC No.1233/2017

15.At this juncture it is also very important to note that both the panchas CW.3 and CW.4, in spite of issuance of summons and warrants were not secured before the Court, and their evidence was taken as nil. In the absence of material panch witnesses, as the contents of Ex.P2 panchanama is not proved sufficiently and satisfactorily by the prosecution. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for accused that the complainant PW.2, in spite of densely populated area has not secured any of the female persons residing adjoining to the raided house. One of the panchas to the panchanama Ex.P2 to be women, as mandated by the Act U/s.15(2) of the ITP Act. The pancha CW.2 and CW.3 are the male persons were not secured by the prosecution, in spite of issuance of warrants and proclamation. Sec..15(2) of ITP Act, reads as follows:-

18.Under 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.4 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.4 clearly discloses that he being in the rank of Police Sub- Inspector, who had registered the case and recored the statements of the witnesses. It is the specific defense of the accused persons that the witness PW.4 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 of Karnataka in Shankaregowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru and others reported in ILR 2016 Kar 3067 , wherein it is held that:-