Judgment:
ORDER
Abhijit Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2007 registered under Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act has prayed for the quashing of the F.I.R. and the entire prosecution arising therefrom.
2. The prosecution case is based on the self-statement of J.P. Roy, Inspector-cum- Officer Incharge, Jakkanpur Police Station recorded at about 2.00 A.M. on 20.7.2007. According to the informant, on receipt of confidential information at around midnight in respect of the owner of Bhagwat Hotel in Karbighaya, indulging in illegal activities like prostitution he along with a police party raided the hotel premises and in course of search found couples in room Nos. 101, 104, 105 and 106 in objectionable condition. The petitioner allegedly was found in room No. 104 with two other men and a woman. The men and women found in the said four rooms were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner had come to Patna for some personal work and had put up in the said hotel but in the meantime the raid was conducted and the petitioner had been arrested /implicated illegally.
4. Raising legal issues it was submitted that under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') such search can be made by Special Officer appointed by the State Government only and the informant not being competent to conduct the search, he had travelled beyond his jurisdiction. He was also critical of the violation of Section 15 of the Act inasmuch as the search was not made in presence of two or more respectable inhabitants out of which at least one should have been a woman.
5. The specious submission of false implication cannot be accepted since according to the F.I.R. the petitioner was found sharing the room with two other men and a woman none of whom he claims to be his relations or acquaintances. It is worthy of note that whereas the petitioner belongs to Rajaun Police Station, the two other men belonged to Sabour Police Station and Desri Police Station and the woman was from Buxar Police Station area and there appears no nexus between them. It is also not the petitioner's case that they were all sharing a four bedded room. Moreover, the plea is his defence which is required to be proved by cogent evidence at the trial.
6. The submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the informant was not competent to conduct the raid, search and arrest, is not tenable. The State Government in the Home (Police) Department issued a Notification No. 8443 dated 4.8.1997, whereby the State Government had authorized to Superintendents of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police and all Inspectors of Police posted in the Criminal Investigation Department and in all the Districts of Bihar State as Special Police Officers for investigating the cases relating to Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 and by a subsequent Notification No. 10796 dated 29.11.1997 the word 'Suppression of Immoral Traffic and Women and Girls Act' in the Notification was replaced by words 'Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act'.
7. In view of the said conferring of powers by the State Government on all Superintendents of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police and Inspectors of Police, I do not find any merit in the first submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
8. So far as the second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the non-presence of a woman as a witness at the time of search is concerned, the law is well settled by the decision in Bai Radha v. State of Gujrat : AIR 1970 SC 1396 wherein it was held that non-compliance with the directions contained in Section 15(2) of the Act in the matter of search would only be an irregularity and not an illegality which will vitiate the trial. Their Lordships further went on to observe that the principles which have been settled with regard to the effect of an irregular search made in exercise of the powers under Section 165 Cr.P.C. would be fully applicable even to a case under the Act where the search has not been made in strict compliance with its provisions. It was also observed that there is no provision in the Act, according to which any search carried out in contravention of Section 15 of the Act, would render the trial illegal.
9. In view of the categoric findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court the issue raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not tenable.
10. In my sincere opinion I find no merit in any of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, although a brave effort was made put forward to make out a bona fide case.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this application which is dismissed.