BANGALORE NATUROPATHY YOGA CENTRE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions the petitioners have questioned the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 ('the Act'for short) designating the police officers specified in the said notification as Special Police Officers for the areas specified in the corresponding entry.

(2.) The plea of the petitioners is as follow : in view of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 13 of the'Act, only a Police Officer designated as a Special Police Officer by the State Government, has the authority and power to investigate into the offences alleged to have been committed, which fall within the description of 'Offence' under the Act. The clear meaning xxx of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 is, that in respect of any particular area not more than one Police Officer xxxx could be appointed as Special Police Officer particularly in view of the words "a Special Police Officer". In order to substantiate the point, the learned counsel invited my attention to the impugned notification. The same reads : HOME SECRETARIAT Notification No. HD 130 PCR 86 Bangalore, dated 18th September 1986 - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act X of 1897), the Government of Karnataka hereby amends the Notification No. HD 176 PCR 78, dated 6th December 1978 as follows : - in the Schedule of the said Notification, for the entries relating to SI. Nos. 1 to 6 the following entries shall be substituted, namely :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_422_KANTLJ2_1987Html1.htm</FRM> From the above notification it may be seen while the Assistant Commissioner specified at SI.No. 5 onwards, are designated as special Police Officers empowered to investigate, in the areas of the specified police stations, the Deputy Commissioners specified at SI.Nos. 1 and 2 are designated as special Police Officers for the areas of East and West division of Police Administration for the City of Van galore. The two officers specified at SI.Nos. 3 and 4 have been designated as special Police Officers under the Act for whole of the Bangalore City. The learned Counsel submitted that the State Government thus had appointed more than one Police Officers in respect of the same area, whereas Section 13(1) authorises the Government only to appoint one Police Officer in respect of one area. In support of the above submission, the learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Ramsingh (A./.H. 1962 S C. 63).

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that what was decided in the judgment of the Supreme Court was that only a Special Police Officer authorised by the issue of a notification under Section 13 of the Act by the State Government was competent to investigate into the offences falling with R. 54 By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, S. T. Badami, Under Secretary to Govt. Home Department. in the purview of the Act and that Police Officers other than those specially designated cannot investigate into the offences falling within the purview of the Act and not that more than one Police Officer could not be nominated who have the jurisdiction in respect of the same area. The relevant portion of the judgment is paragraph 24. it reads: