-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2616 OF 2008 1. Fatima Mohammad Shaikh 2. Deepika Mallikana Shetty 3. Sangita Ravi Shetty : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent ... Mr.Anand S. Patil i/b. Mr.Shekhar A. Ingawale for the petitioners. Ms S.V.Gajre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Rule. Ms Gajre, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, waives service for the State. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the -: 2 :- learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief: On 30.5.2008, a police party attached to Karveer Police Station effected raid on a building situate at Gokul Shirgaon and arrested 12 persons for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). The police party took into custody six women, who were the victims, who were indulging in prostitution. It appears that the victims were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 31.5.2008. The learned Magistrate passed an order directing that the victims should be detained in safe custody in Navjeevan Mahila Vasatigruha at Chembur, Mumbai, till 9.6.2008. 3. The petitioners are the victims who were taken into custody by the police on 30.5.2008. The case of the petitioners is that they were not produced before the learned Magistrate after 9.6.2008. It is pointed out that by an order dated 31.5.2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate had directed the Probation Officer to make an inquiry as contemplated by section 17 of the said Act and to submit a report. By a further order dated 28.8.2008, the learned Magistrate directed that the petitioners -: 3 :- shall be detained at Navjeevan Mahila Vasatigruha at Chembur, Mumbai, for a period of one year. Some of the relatives of the victims preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court by challenging the said order dated 28.8.2008. The appeal has been dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no inquiry as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 17 of the said Act was conducted by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the order under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the said Act was passed by the learned Magistrate after expiry of a period of 21 days from the date on which the petitioners were taken into custody. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ms Khushi Harkrishan Malhotra v. State of Maharashtra (2006 (3) Crimes 41), he submitted that the order of detention of the petitioners passed by the learned Magistrate on 28.8.2008 is completely illegal. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent supported the impugned orders by pointing out that the order impugned passed by the learned -: 4 :- Judicial Magistrate is based on a report of the Investigating Officer and for protecting the interest of the petitioners, the order impugned has been passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that no interference was called for. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were taken in custody on 30.5.2008 and they were produced before the learned Magistrate on the next day. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order calling upon the Probation Officer to submit a report. The learned Magistrate directed that the petitioners shall be kept in the said Navjeevan Mahila Vasatigruha till 9.6.2008. Sub-section (3) of section 17 of the said Act provides that when an inquiry as required by sub-section (2) of section 17 of the said Act is ordered, for a maximum period of three weeks, the Magistrate has power to direct detention of the victim in a particular institution. The second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 17 clearly provides that no person shall be kept in custody for that purpose for a period exceeding three weeks from the date of passing an order directing holding of an inquiry. In the present case, an enquiry was ordered by the learned Magistrate on 31.5.2008 and the final order under sub-section (4) of section 17 has been passed on -: 5 :- 28.8.2008. As per the scheme of section 17, final order could have been passed within a period of three weeks from 31.5.2008. However, that has not been done. Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ms Khushi Harkrishan Malhotra (supra), detention of the petitioners in Navjeevan Mahila Vasatigruha on expiry of a period of three weeks from 31.5.2008 was completely illegal. This aspect has been completely brushed aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while deciding the appeal. The order dated 28.8.2008 passed long after the expiry of the period of three weeks as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 17 of the said Act is illegal and the said order has been vitiated. Thus, the only option available for this Court is to set aside the impugned orders with a direction that the petitioners shall be set at liberty. 7. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R (a) The impugned orders dated 31.5.2008 and 28.8.2008 are quashed and set aside. (b) The petitioners shall be forthwith set at liberty, unless required in any other case. -: 6 :- (c) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. A.S. OKA, J.