Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether non-compliance with the requirements of section 15(1) and section 15(2) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women & Girls Act, 1956 in conducting the search rendered the trial illegal and vitiated the conviction.
Analysis: The statutory safeguards in section 15 were intended to regulate searches of premises in sensitive offences under the Act, and the investigating agency was expected to observe them strictly. However, the omission to record adequate grounds for search and the failure to secure inhabitants of the locality as panch witnesses did not, by itself, invalidate the trial. The governing procedure for offences under the Act was still subject to the Code of Criminal Procedure, and section 537 of that Code applied. The decisive question was whether the accused had suffered prejudice or whether the irregularity had caused a failure of justice. In the absence of any shown prejudice, the defect in the search remained an irregularity and not an illegality that would nullify the conviction.
Conclusion: Non-compliance with section 15 did not vitiate the trial or conviction in the absence of prejudice to the accused; the conviction was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A search made in breach of statutory safeguards is not ipso facto fatal to the trial where the applicable criminal procedure provision cures the defect and no prejudice or failure of justice is demonstrated.