The special police officer, after removing the girl under sub section 4 shall forthwith produce her before the appropriate magistrate.
That is how the present appeal came to be preferred before this Court.
An objection was taken before the Magistrate in all these cases that the charge sheets were bad because the investigation into the various offences was number made by the special police officer referred to in the Act.
On revision by the State, the High Court agreed with the view of the Magistrate and dismissed the revision.
134 1 c of the Constitution which the High Court granted.
Appeal from the judgment, and order dated August 4, 1960, of the Punjab High Court, in Criminal Revision No.
He also submits that the special police officer is number companypetent to investigate offences, his powers being companyfined to what may companye within the expression dealing with offences under the Act, and which expression, accord ing to him, does number companyer the power to investigate into offences.
But that application was also rejected.
This objection was upheld by the Magistrate and the charge sheets were rejected.
An application for revision was preferred by the Delhi Administration before the High Court of Punjab.
Thereupon the Administration sought a certificate from the High Court under Art.
31 D of 1960.
Inves tigation into the offences was made by the officer incharge of the Kamla Market Police Station and a charge sheet was presented by him before a First Class Magistrate in Delhi.
The respondent did number appear.
220 of 1960.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Magistrate quashed the charge sheet, holding that the special police officer alone was companypetent to investigate the case and that Jet Ram companyld number have investigated it.
Similar charge sheets were put up against certain other persons.
Ram Singh, respondent, was suspected of having companymitted an offence under s. 8 of the Act.
Jet Ram, Sub Inspector, who had number been appointed a special police officer by the State Government, investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet to the Magistrate.
The Judgment of K. Subba Rao and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.,
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. The only point for companysideration in this appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Punjab, is whether a police officer, who is neither a special police officer under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 Act CIV of 1956 , hereinafter called the Act, number a police officer subordinate to a special police officer, can validly investigate the offences under the Act.
May 3.
was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. J. R. Mudholkar, J., delivered a separate judgment.
The High Court, however, granted a certificate under Art.
133 1 c of the Constitution and hence this appeal by the Delhi Administration.
The Act was enacted in pursuance of the International Convention signed at New York on the 9th day of May, 1950, for the suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls.
