Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)Section 13 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Delhi Administration vs Ram Singh on 3 May, 1961
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the above
case of Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh that whether a police
officer, who is neither a special police officer under the Suppression of
Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 nor a police officer
subordinate to a special police officer, can validly investigate the offences
under the Act. Whereas, the ground raised by the petitioners is that non
compliance of the provisions under Section 13 of the Act.
9/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Bai Radha vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 1968
However, the decision in Bai Radha Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
1969 (1) SCC 43 was not brought to the notice of this Court.
Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini vs K. Natarajan on 6 August, 2021
5. In support of his contentions, he relied upon several
Judgments in which this Court held in Crl.O.P.No.30001 of 2019 in
respect of the provisions under Section 15 of the ITP Act. By relying
upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (1) LW Crl 94 in the
case of Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and Ors. Vs. K.Natarajan and Ors.,
held that the inspection was not carried out by the Special Police Officer
or the Trafficking Police Officer or the Officer who carried out the
inspection, was not an authorized Officer under Section 15 of the Act.
4/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15963 of 2020
Further, held that if the search and inspection is not carried out by
following the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act, the entire
proceeding is illegal in the eye of law. The Police officer failed to follow
the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 15 of the ITP
Act.