IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4620 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.69/1999 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION CC.457/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.6 --------------------------- SAJITHA, D/O.KUNJALAN, AGED 33 YEARS, VALLIKKATTU HOUSE, VAZHKKADU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4620 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The alleged incident took place on 19.6.1999. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons were indulging in objectionable activity under the I.T.P. Act. The offence was allegedly detected by a Circle Inspector of Police, who was not duly notified or competent to conduct search under Section 15 of the Act. The search was conducted by such Circle Inspector on the basis of the alleged authorisation given to him by the Dy.S.P./Asst. Commissioner, who was legally notified as the Special Officer/Trafficking Officer. 3. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the decisions in Sinu Sainudheen v. S.I. of Police (2002 (1) KLT 693), Joseph v. S.I. of Police (2003(3) KLT Crl.M.C.No. 4620 of 2008 2 718) and Muhammed Ali v. S.I. of Police (2005 (3) KLT 527) the search and investigation conducted by a subordinate police officer allegedly on the basis of a Special Officer/Trafficking Officer is not valid or legal. 4. The learned Prosecutor submits that in the light of those decisions referred above, the prayer of the petitioner will have to be accepted. I am satisfied that the prosecution against the petitioner is clearly barred in the light of the decisions referred above. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) C.C.457 of 2001 pending before the J.F.M.C.-V, Kozhikode in which the petitioner is the 6th accused, is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 4620 of 2008 3