Immoral Trafficking Act | Search Without Warrant Not Illegal If People From Locality Refuse To Join: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the search under the Immoral Prevention Trafficking Act would not be illegal if people from the locality were requested to join the proceedings, but none came forward.
According to Section 15 of the Immoral Prevention Trafficking Act, before making a search without a warrant, the special police officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said the argument that the "search was illegal, as no one from the locality was associated, is not acceptable for the reason that people from the locality were requested to join the proceedings, but none came forward."
The Court added that it was also discernible that the Women Helpline team was associated at the time of the search; thus, there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act.
The second bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for seeking bail pending trial in FIR registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Immoral Prevention Trafficking Act, 1956 and Sections 370 and 120-B IPC, at Chandigarh.
According to the FIR secret information was received by Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.D.P.O (South-West), Sector 36, Chandigarh that a spa is running in the City in violation of the immoral trafficking act. Thereafter, the Women Helpline Team was called on the spot and a raid was conducted by the police in the Spa Centre run by the petitioner consisting of a total of 08 rooms. On checking, a 'busy' board was found hanging outside two rooms and upon opening, a man was found in an objectionable position, the same was the case in another room.
It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated as the petitioner was neither present at the time of the alleged occurrence nor any incriminating material recovered from him.
Further, it was contended that the search was conducted in contravention of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act, as no inhabitant of the locality was joined during the search operation.
After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the contention that there was no compliance with Section 15 of the Act.
"The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that search was illegal, as no one from the locality was associated, is not acceptable for the reason that people from the locality were requested to join the proceedings, but none came forward. Also discernible that Women Helpline team was associated at the time of search; thus, there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act," added the Court.
It further noted that "it is not in dispute that charges have already been framed on 17.02.2024 and trial is pending for recording prosecution evidence. Thus, the point of Section 15(2) of the Act would a matter of trial, after leading evidence by both sides."
Justice Sindhu highlighted that, above all, there is no allegation that the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the behest of someone or by the police.
In the light of the above, the plea was rejected.
Mr. Viren Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate (Standing counsel for UT-Chd.) with Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, APP, UT Chandigarh.
Title: XXX v. U.T. Chandigarh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 256