Court rules non-compliance with Section 15(2) of ITP Act does not automatically nullify proceedings; emphasizes trial to determine prejudice to accused.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court dismissed petitions seeking to quash an FIR against Y. Gnana Ganesh and others, accused of operating a prostitution ring under the guise of a spa in Madurai. The court, presided over by Justice R. Vijayakumar, held that the non-compliance with Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act) does not automatically vitiate the criminal proceedings unless prejudice to the accused is established during the trial.
The case arose from a police raid on a spa in Anna Nagar, Madurai, where two women from Nagaland and Assam were allegedly found in compromising conditions, leading to accusations of forced prostitution. The petitioners, including the spa's manager and receptionist, challenged the FIR, citing procedural violations, particularly the absence of respectable inhabitants during the search as mandated by Section 15(2) of the ITP Act.
The petitioners argued that the search was conducted by regular police officers, not the designated Special Police Officers, making the operation unlawful. They further contended that affidavits from the alleged victims, claiming coercion and language barriers, supported their case for quashing the FIR.
The court, however, upheld the legality of the search, noting that a 1987 Government Order empowers police officers of the rank of Inspector and above as Special Police Officers under the ITP Act. Justice Vijayakumar emphasized that the procedural safeguard of involving local respectable inhabitants primarily applies to searches in residential premises, not commercial establishments like the spa in question.
The court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment in Bai Radha v. The State of Gujarat, asserting that non-compliance with procedural safeguards does not invalidate proceedings unless it results in demonstrable prejudice against the accused. This determination, the court ruled, is a matter for the trial court.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the spa operated without the necessary No Objection Certificate and license, in violation of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, weakening the defense's position.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, allowing the trial to proceed, and noted that the affidavits from the victims would only be considered during the trial process.
Bottom line:-
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Mandatory compliance with Section 15(2) for search in commercial premises not required - Non-compliance of Section 15(2) does not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice to the accused is established during trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Sections 13, 15(1), 15(2); Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 Rule 299; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Y. Gnana Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2934596
