JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The only point for consideration, in this appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Punjab, is whether a police officer, who is neither a special police officer under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act CIV of 1956), hereinafter called the Act, nor a police officer subordinate to a special police officer, can validly invistigate the offences under the Act,
(2.)Ram Singh, respondent, was suspected of having committed an offence under S. 8 of the Act. Jet Rarn, Sub-Inspector, who had not been appointed a special police officer by the State Government investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet to the Magistrate. The Magistrate quashed the charge-sheet, holding that the special police officer alone was competent to investigate the case and that Jet Ram could not have investigated it. On revision by the State, the High Court agreed with the view of the Magistrate and dismissed the revision. The High Court, however, granted a certificate under Art. 133 (1)(c) of the Constitution and hence this appeal by the Delhi Administration.
(3.)The learned solicitor-General, appearing for the Delhi Administration, has submitted that in the absence of any definite provision in the Act debarring the police to exercise its powers with respect to cognizable offences, the regular police call exercise those powers and that consequently there is nothing wrong in the Sub-Inspector of the regular police making an investigation in a case under the Act. He also submits that the special police officer is not competent to investigate offences his powers being confined to what may come within the expression 'dealing with offences under the Act', and which expression, according to him does not cover the power to investigate into offences,