SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL Vs. KSHITISH CHANDRA ROY
LAWS(CAL)-1960-11-15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 18,1960

SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL Appellant
VERSUS
Kshitish Chandra Roy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SEN, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application was filed by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal, against the order of Shri S. N. Chanda, 7th Presidency Magistrate, filing a case under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, after he had framed charges against the accused in that case.
(2.) THE facts are briefly as follows : On a certain information, the Assistant Commissioner (II) Central, Calcutta Police and some other Police Officers raided the flat in the first floor of the premises at No. 1 Free School Street, Calcutta at about 3 -45 p.m. on 20 -12 -58. Opposite Party No. 1 Khitish Chandra Roy and Opposite Party No. 2 Malati Roy said to be husband and wife are the tenants in respect of the flat. The police officers found opposite party No. 3 Sushila Bala Dasi in a compromising position with another man who was not ultimately sent up by the police. As a result of investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the flat in question was used for the purpose of prostitution, and opposite Party No. 3 Sushila Bala Dasi was one of the girls who was allowed to use the premises for the purpose of prostitution. Accordingly, a chargesheet under Section 3(2)(a) and Section 7(2)(b) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act was submitted against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and under Section 7(1) of the Act against opposite party No. 3. The learned Magistrate framed charges against these accused opposite parties on 9 -3 -59 and fixed 6th, 7th and 8th April for evidence. On 6th a legal objection was raised on behalf of the accused opposite parties, and the learned Magistrate heard the objection, and heard the lawyers of both sides further on the next day, 7 -4 -59, and came to the conclusion that as the case had been investigated fay the officer -in -charge of Taftala Police station, who was an officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner of police appointed as Special Police Officer to deal with the offences under the Supression of Immoral Traffic Act, and was not himself such special police officer, the investigation was illegal. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate ordered that the case be filed for the present and discharged the sureties from their bailbonds. He observed that the proper police might re -investigate and submit fresh charge -sheet after proper investigation.
(3.) MR . H. Chatterji appearing for the State of West Bengal has urged that under the provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, investigation of an offence under the Act is not necessarily to be done by a Special Police Officer appointed under the Act for dealing with the offences under the Act, but that such Special Police Officers alone have the special powers conferred on them by Sections 14 and 15 of the Act; but that when a case has been started in consequence of any action taken under those sections by the Special Police Officers, the regular police force have the power to investigate the offence and submit charge -sheet. Mr. Chatterji has pointed out that unlike the 'Prevention of Corruption Act; the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act does not specifically provide tor the investigation being done by a special class of officers, but Section 13 of the Act only provides that the State Government shall appoint a special Police Officer for each area for dealing with offences under this Act on that area. Mr. Chatterji submits that the term 'dealing with the offences' does not necessarily include investigation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.