Allowed

Mini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2009Crl.MC/2321/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an accused in a prostitution case, challenged the validity of the investigation and FIR, arguing the arresting Sub Inspector lacked special officer status under the Immoral Traffic Act. The Court upheld the challenge, ruling the investigator devoid of jurisdiction to register the crime.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C.No.2321/2006 allowed; Annexures A1 and A2 as against the petitioner quashed.

Mini Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2321 of 2006(A)

¶6

-------------------------------------CC.NO.337/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL

¶7

PETITIONER/ 7TH ACCUSED:

¶8

-----------------------------------------

¶9

MINI, D/O. SWARNAMMA, SHYMA BHAVAN, THANNIMOODU, VETTAMBALLY MURI, ANAD VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.M.DINESH, SMT.K.I.ANITHA.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

-------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGODE POLICE STATION.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶19

===================

¶20

Crl.M.C. No. 2321 of 2006-A

¶21

===================

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2009.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioner is seventh accused in Crime No.93/2002 of Pangode Police Station, now pending as C.C.No.337/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 5(d), 6(b) and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Prosecution case is that on 10-7-2002 at about 11.45 PM, first accused paid Rs.1,000/to the petitioner and procured her to a saloon shop owned by second accused for making income by way of prostitution and accused 1 to 3 were waiting for their turn and finding them, Sub Inspector arrested them and registered Annexure A1 FIR. After completion of the investigation on 9-4-2003, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Attingal filed final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2321/2006-A

¶26

-2-

¶27

Criminal Procedure contending that Sub Inspector of Police, who arrested the petitioner had no power to arrest or investigate the offence under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act as he is not the special officer as provided under Section 13 of the Act. Relying on the decision of this Court in Joseph v. Sub Inspector of Police (2003 (3) KLT 718) and Muhammed Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police (2005 (3) KLT 527) it is contended that the case is liable to be quashed.

¶28

Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶29

The validity of search conducted by Sub Inspector of Police and registration of crime was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Joseph v. Sub Inspector of Police (2003 (3) KLT 718). It was held that a Sub Inspector of Police is not a special officer empowered to conduct search under Section 15 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and therefore the search or arrest by him or subsequent registration of the crime by him is invalid.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2321/2006-A

¶31

-3-

¶32

The question was again considered by this Court in Muhammed Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police (2005 (3) KLT 527) and the same legal position was reiterated. In the light of the said decisions it can only be found that the Sub Inspector of Police, who detected the crime and registered the crime, has no power to register the crime. Consequently, further investigation by him as well as the final report submitted by him is illegal.

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.2321/2006 is allowed. Annexures A1 and A2 as against the petitioner is quashed.

¶34

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶35

dkr

Mini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.M. Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Nasar B. Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Musliyar Vs State of Kerala

Paulson Vs Pavanan

C.B.Latheef Vs the Station House Officer

E.K.Riju Vs State of Kerala & Others