[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.4371 OF 2005 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Hanumanti Durgappa Harijan ..Respondent ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State Mr.D.H.Keluskar Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 291 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offence under Sections 372 and 373 of IPC and under Sections 3 to 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (Hereinafter referred to as "PITA Act"). 2. It is the prosecution case that PW 2 Bagavva was used for the purpose of prostitution in a [-2-] brothel and the said Bagavva was a minor, hence, offences were made out under Sections 372 and 373 of IPC and under Sections 3 to 6 of PITA Act. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the prosecution was unable to prove that PW 2 Bagavva was a minor at the time of the offence. No Birth Certificate or any other documentary evidence was produced to show that Bagavva was a minor. So also the parents of Bagavva had not been examined to prove the date of birth of Bagavva. No doubt, Bagavva has stated that she was 16 years of age at the time of offence, however, there is no basis as to why Bagavva has stated that her age was 16 years at that time. Moreover, Dr.Jayashree Mhaske the Medical Officer who had examined Bagavva has given an opinion that the age of Bagavva was about 18 years. Thus, the prosecution having failed to prove that Bagavva was a minor at the time of the offence, offences under Sections 372 and 373 of IPC cannot be said to be made out. [-3-] 4. As far as the offences under PITA Act are concerned, in the present case, the Special Police Officer as visualised under the Act, has not investigated the offence. In this connection, useful reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Delhi Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh reported in AIR 1962 Administration Vs. Ram Singh reported in AIR 1962 Administration Vs. Ram Singh reported in AIR 1962 SC 63. SC 63. SC 63. In the said case, it is observed that it is clear that only a special police officer is competent to investigate and that he and his assistant police officer are the only person competent to investigate the offence under the Act and that police officer not specially appointed as special police officer cannot investigate the offences under the Act even though they are cognizable offences. In view of the said decision, the learned Sessions Judge observed that as the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence showing that the investigating officer was appointed as a special police officer for this technical reason the charges under various sections of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956 necessarily fail. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special [-4-] Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. 6. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [-5-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]