BAI RADHA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 20-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BAI RADHA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
November 20, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
799 
Suppression of lmmoml Traffic in Women and 
Girls Act 
(104 of 
1956), ss. 15(1) and (2)-Trial ending in conviction-Provisions of s. 15 
disregarded during investigation-No prejudice to 
accused-Effect 
on 
trial. 
The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under ss. 3 (I) 
and 4( !) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 
1956. The special police officer conducted a 
raid on the 
appellant's 
house which was being kept as a brothel and recovered marked currency 
notes from the appellant. He took with him two persons to witne'S the 
search but they were not inhabitants of the locali1y as required by s. 15 (2) 
of the Act. 
After the scacch he prepared a document. It did not satisfy 
the requirements of s. 15(1) as it did not contain any ground on which 
he formed the belief that an offence under the Act was bemg committed 
in the premises and that a search of the premises with warrant cannot be 
made without undue delay. 
On the qu.,tion whether the trial was illegal as there was a violation of 
s. 15(1) and (2). 
HELD : The Act being a special one a search under the Act must 
comnly with s. 15. 
Investigating agencies ought not to disregard 
the 
special sa'feguards such as those in s. 15(1) and (2) 
provided 
by the 
Legislature, but the trial itself would not be vitiated 
if there was non-
comoliance with such directions unless thereby some prejudice is caused 
to the. accused. 
The court however, has to be very careful in weighing 
the evidence where there has been such non-Ob'iervance of the provisions. 
[803 G-H; 805 E----Gl 
(a) !hough the re_cordi~g. of reasons may be a necessary 
C011dition 
for making a search, 1unsd1ction to make a search is not derived there-
from. 
The power to search is conferred by statute. 
Therefore, omission 
to _record reas.ons be'fore the search or even thereafter in a proper way 
would not by itself affect the validity of the search. [803 A-Bl 
' 
State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, [1960] [ S.C.R. 991, followed . 
. • (b) Unde_r s. 5(2) Criminal Procedure Code, all proceedings includ· 
10, . ., 1nve'ihgat1.on of offences under any law. have 
to be 
conducted 
in 
accordance ~1th the .~rocedure laid down in the Code except to the extent 
of anv snec1fic nrov1s 1on contained in a special Act 
Under th s . 
~10~ of I~.moralf Traffic Act there is no provision de~ling with th~ e~~~tr~f 
on. ravcn
1
100 o s. 15. 
There'fore, the law with re_gard to the effect of 
an meru ar search under s. 165 of the Code would apply. 
Where a trial 
has !~_ken. place, under s. 537 of the Olde a defect or an illegalit in the 
~~vill toa/.'~n _ha~ no bearing on the result of the trial unless the iriegularity 
th · eqa 1 ~ J'i s .own to have 'hrou!:!'ht ~bout a milicarriag~ of iustice Sine"' 
c;i e_ n~n-o ~ervan~e of th~ provisions of s. 15(2) of the Act. in the Prc"ien't 
'se, !s a m:re 1rre.gu]aritv. the conviction o'f the appellant cou1d not be 
.
~et
1
.as1de[
8
as It was not shown that the irregularity caused ony failure 
of 
1us tee. 
04 B-C; 805 B, E, H-806 Bl 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 s.c.R. 
H. N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955] I S.C.R~ 1150 
A 
and State of U.P. v. Bhagwati Kislwre Jashi, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 71, followed. 
f 
Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 694 and Public 
Prosecu-tor, Andhra Pradesh v. U, Nageswararao A.LR. 19€5 A.P. 176, re-
ferred to. 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Crim\nal Appeal No. 
1 (N) of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 12, 13, 1966 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 390 of 1965. 
B. Datta, for the appellant. 
H. R. Khanna and B. D. Sharma, ,for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
The sole point which arises for decision in this 
appeal by special leave is whether the trial became illegal by 
reason of the search not having been conducted strictly in accord-
ance with the provisions of s. 15 of the Suppression of Immoral 
Traffic in Women & Girls Act, J 956 (Act CIV of 1956), here-
inafter called the "Act". 
The facts need not be stated in detail. 
The appellant and 
two other persons were tried for various offences under the provi-
sions of the Act, the charge substantially against her being that 
she was keeping a brothel in her house and knowingly lived on 
the earnings

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.