Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Before considering the rival contentions of both parties, it is necessary to extract Section 2(i) of the Act 1 of 1986.

"2(i): "Immoral Traffic Offender" means 'a person who commits or abets the commission of any offence under Suppression of Immoral Traffic of Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956)".

A perusal of the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent against detenu on 25.09.2018 goes to show that the detenu was detained on the 4 HCJ&ARR,J WP_43532_2018 ground that her activities falls within the ambit of Section 2(i) of the Act i.e., 'Immoral Traffic Offender', which is evident from the fact that a case in Cr.No.277/2018 of Yadagirigutta Police Station under Sections 370(1)(5), 372, 373, 366(A) IPC, Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POSCO Act'), Sections 3 to 7 of ITP Act, 1956, Sections 75, 81 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 of Police Station Yadagirugutta, registered against detenu on the allegation that the detenu running brothel house by securing the girls from her community, other part of the State and forcibly trapping them into prostitution by offering money and luxury life. Admittedly, the detenu is not charged under any of the offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956), as such, the said ground was raised to invalidate the order of detention. But the fact remains that the said Act was amended by the Government of India vide Act 44 of 1986 and its title was substituted by Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which came into force on 26.01.1987. By the time of Act 1 of 1986 was enacted, the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956) was holding the field. Admittedly, the detenu was charged for the offences under 2(i) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The definition of 'Immoral Traffic Offender' under clause (i) of Section 2 was enacted by way of referential legislation referring to the provisions of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956). That apart, gazette notification published on 28.02.1986 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 provides definition under clause (i) of Section 2 of the 'Immoral Traffic Offender' means a person 5 HCJ&ARR,J WP_43532_2018 who commits or abets the commission of any offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of1956).

"31. We shall now proceed to consider whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modified by the State Acts stand incorporated in the State Acts or whether there is a mere reference or citation of the Land Acquisition Act in the State Acts. The law on the subject is well settled. When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act as if they had been bodily transposed into it. The incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later. But this must be distinguished from a referential legislation which merely contains a reference or the citation of the provisions of an earlier statute. In a case where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second. The later Act along with the incorporated provisions of the earlier Act constitutes an (2002) 7 SCC 657 6 HCJ&ARR,J WP_43532_2018 independent legislation which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal of the earlier Act. However, where in a later Act there is a mere reference to an earlier Act, the modification, repeal or amendment of the statute that is referred, will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred. It is equally well settled that the question whether a former statute is merely referred to or cited in a later statute, or whether it is wholly or partially incorporated therein, is a question of construction."

34. In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam [(1998) 2 SCC 467] this Court observed: (SCC p. 480, para 17) "17. A subsequent legislation often makes a reference to the earlier legislation so as to make the provisions of the earlier legislation applicable to matters covered by the later legislation. Such a legislation may either be (i) a referential legislation which merely contains a reference to or the citation of the provisions of the earlier statute; or (ii) a legislation by incorporation whereunder the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made are incorporated into the later legislation by reference. If it is a referential legislation the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made in the subsequent legislation would be applicable as it stands on the date of application of such earlier legislation to matters referred to in the subsequent legislation. In other words, any amendment made in the earlier legislation after the date of enactment of the subsequent legislation would also be applicable. But if it is a legislation by incorporation the rule of construction is that repeal of the earlier statute which is incorporated does not affect operation of the subsequent statute in which it has been incorporated. So also any amendment in the statute which has been so incorporated that is made after the date of incorporation of such statute does not affect the subsequent statute in which it is incorporated and the provisions of the statute which have been incorporated would remain the same as they were at the time of incorporation and the subsequent amendments are not to be read in the subsequent legislation."