1961 (5) TMI 61 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of a police officer to investigate offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.
2. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Act regarding the role of special police officers.
3. Applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigations under the Act.
4. The potential for dual investigations by different police authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of a Police Officer to Investigate Offences under the Act:
The central issue is whether a police officer, who is neither a special police officer nor subordinate to one, can validly investigate offences under the Act. The respondent was suspected of committing an offence under Section 8 of the Act, and the investigation was conducted by a Sub-Inspector who was not a special police officer. The Magistrate and the High Court quashed the charge-sheet on the grounds that only a special police officer was competent to investigate such offences. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the Act is a complete code and that the special police officer and his subordinates are the only ones authorized to investigate offences under the Act.

2. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Act:
Section 13 of the Act mandates the appointment of a special police officer for each specified area to deal with offences under the Act. The term "dealing with offences" is interpreted broadly to include all police functions related to the Act, such as detection, prevention, and investigation of offences. The Court held that the special police officer's role is comprehensive and exclusive, and regular police officers are not authorized to investigate offences under the Act.

3. Applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Court examined the relationship between the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 5 of the CrPC states that offences under any law other than the Indian Penal Code should be investigated according to the CrPC, subject to any special provisions in that law. The Court noted that the Act provides specific procedures and machinery for dealing with offences, implying that regular police procedures under the CrPC are not applicable. The Act's provisions, such as those in Section 14 and Section 15, indicate that only the special police officer can perform certain actions like arrest and search without a warrant, further supporting the exclusivity of the special police officer's role.

4. Potential for Dual Investigations:
The Court addressed concerns about the potential for dual investigations by regular police and special police officers. It emphasized that allowing regular police to investigate would lead to confusion and duplication of efforts, as there is no mechanism in the Act to coordinate between the two. The Court concluded that the special police officer's powers to investigate are exclusive to avoid such complications.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that only special police officers and their subordinates are competent to investigate offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. The Act is a complete code, and its provisions prevail over the general procedures of the CrPC. The term "dealing with offences" in Section 13 is interpreted broadly to include investigation, and regular police officers are not authorized to perform these duties. The Court's decision aims to prevent confusion and ensure that the specialized machinery of the Act functions effectively.