1 wp2838.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2838 OF 2010 Smt. Pushpa Ram Thapa. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Sudhir Halli, advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 22, 2010. P.C. 1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 15th September, 2010 in exercise of powers under section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The only question that remains to be considered, as was indicated in the order dated 14th December, 2010 is : whether any offence has been registered against the Petitioner under section 7 of the Act ? The respondents on affidavit have stated thus: “I say that at the time of lodging FIR Section 7 of PITA Act was not added on 26.2.2010. I further say that after registration of offence, during the course of inquiry it was revealed that the said raided place is situated within the area 200 mtrs. Therefore, after 2 wp2838.10 examining the material, Section 7 of PITA Act was added on 7.5.2010. I further say that when the charge-sheet was filed, Section 7 of PITA Act is mentioned. The contention of the petitioner is not correct, hence, the said petition is liable to be rejected.” 2. In view of the above position, the grievance does not arise for consideration. For, section 7 of the Act has been referred to in the FIR/chargesheet filed against the Petitioner. Besides, in the companion matter being Criminal Writ Petition No.2436 of 2010 disposed of today, we have already examined the effect of not registering FIR for offence under section 7 before initiating action under section 18 of the Act and negatived that contention. For the same reason, even this Petition deserves to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)