Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) For quashing of the proceeding being G. R. Case No. No. 700 of 1992 arising out of Shyampore Police Station Case No. 102/92 dated 26.12.92 under Ss. 3 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 this revisional application has been filed and also against the order dated 03.1.94 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia in connection with the said case. The main question involved in this revisional application relates to submission of a charge -sheet filed by the Sub -Inspector of Police attached to the Shyampore Police Station, who was not authorised to do so and the attention of the learned Magistrate having been drawn to the said fact with a prayer for setting aside the order of cognizance taken on the basis of such charge -sheet being turned down by the learned Magistrate whether the said order can be sustained.
(2.) The learned lawyer appearing in support of the application has referred to the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the said Act, for brevity) and showed that the Sub -Inspector of Police was not authorised to submit the charge -sheet and as the same was done by a Sub -Inspector of Police, the cognizance taken on the basis of the same is liable to be set aside. He has submitted that the learned Magistrate by refusing to accept the prayer made on behalf of the accused persons and calling for a report from the Investigating Officer has, in fact, caused a failure of justice and indirectly refused such prayer. The learned lawyer appearing for the petitioners had annexed an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in support of his contention that in a similar situation the proceeding was quashed as the investigation was conducted by a person other than who has been authorised to do so under the said Act.
(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing with the learned Junior Government advocate for the State refuted the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that mere irregularity in an investigation cannot wholesale render the fruits of the same to be infructuous. He has submitted that the petitioner has come -up at a stage which was not the correct stage. He submitted that it would appear from the order the cognizance was taken by the learned court on 30.3.93; but the said order was not challenged. As such, the cognizance stood final and the learned Magistrate had rightly refused to interfere and on the contrary, had called for a report from the Investing Officer with regard to the actual position. Even then, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the learned Magistrate ought to have out -right refused the same as otherwise, the point canvassed on behalf of the petitioners was not maintainable.;