LexR.A.H. SIGURAN versus SHANKARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 7 S.C.R. 754 R.A.H. SIGURAN v. SHANKARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA & ANR. (Crimina1Appea1No.1439of 2017) AUGUST 18, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.I Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Case against respondent no.l was that he procured minor girls and sent them for C prostitution through co-accused - Quashing of the proceedings against respondent no.l sought on the ground that Investigating officer who conducted the investigation was not authorised to do so under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Held: It is well settled that even if investigation is not conducted by authorised D officer. the trial is not vitiated unless prejudice is shown - High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings merely on the ground that the investigation was not valid - Trial court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. E H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196: [1955) 1 SCR 1150; Union of India and Ors represented through Superintendent of Police v. T. Nathamuni (2014) 16 SCC 285:1 20141 12 SCR 297 - relied on. F Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh AIR 1962 SC 63 : (1962) 2 SCR 694 - referred to. G H Case Law Reference [19621 2 SCR 694 [1955) 1 SCR 1150 (2014] 12 SCR 297 referred to relied on relied on Para6 Para 10 Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1439 of2017. 754 R.A.H. SIGURAN v. SHANKARE GOWDA@ SHANKARA 755 &ANR. From th\: final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2016 passed by A the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.5330/ 2015. A. Philips, Ms. Lityi M. Noshi, Ms. Arnita Singh Kalka!, Advs. for the Appellant. Anil V. Katarki, Anil C. Nishani, T.R.B. Sivakumar, V.N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER B 1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. C 2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against Respondent No.1 on the ground that Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation was not authorized to do so under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act). D 3. The case of the prosecution is that a raid was conducted on the night of 27th August, 2010 in a lodge and it was found that.Respondent No.1 had procured minor girls and sent them for prostitution through his co-accused. He was indulging in prostitution with the aid of co-accused. · After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 E and 9 of the Act read with Sections 366A; 372 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 20th August, 2011. 4. The Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The charges were framed on 23rd April, 2015. 5. The prosecution examined PW-1 on 14th July, 2015 but the cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred at the request of Respondent No.l. 6. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section F 482 Cr.PC before the High Court on the ground that Investigating Officer was not competent to investigate. He was not a Special Police Officer G covered by notification issued by the Government of Karnataka under the Act. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration versus Ram Singh1· '(1962) 2 SCR 694, AIR 1962 SC 63 H 756 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. 7. The High Court allowed the.petition as follows:- " 14. The investigation since not steered by Special Officer appointed by Section 13 of the Act is illegal and vitiated, though the trial has already begun, having noticed the basic infirmity allowing the proceedings to continue any more is abuse of the process of the Court itself. On that count, the petition is liable to be quashed under the jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in S.C.No. 219/2013 pending on the file ofVIIIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengal um, is hereby quashed." 8. No doubt, this Court in Ram Singh (supra) held by majority that the Act was a complete code and certain provisions of the Act could not be complied with by the regular police. Arrest without warrant may be made only by Special Police Officer under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act and not by a regular police. Search without a warrant can also be done only by a Special Police Office
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.