1965 (11) TMI 160 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Special Police Officer's Appointment Upheld, Investigation Process Deemed Lawful

Rasiklal Manilal Versus State of Gujarat

The court upheld the validity of the appointment of the Special Police Officer, ruling that appointment by virtue of office was in accordance with the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appointment of the Special Police Officer.2. Compliance with the investigation provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Appointment of the Special Police Officer:The appellant contended that there was no officer validly appointed under the Act for the area where the offence took place. According to the prosecution, Shri Desai, the S.D.P.O. of Western Railway, was the special police officer appointed by the State Government for the purposes of the Act. The appellant argued that the Act requires the appointment of a Special Officer not by designation or by office but by name. The court examined Section 13 of the Act and Section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows appointments either by name or by virtue of office unless expressly provided otherwise. The court concluded that the Act does not require the appointment of special police officers by name and that the appointment by virtue of office is valid. The court rejected the appellant's contention, stating that the appointment of Shri Desai as a Special Officer by virtue of his office was in accordance with the law.2. Compliance with the Investigation Provisions of the Act:The appellant argued that the investigation was not conducted in compliance with the Act, as it was not wholly carried out by the special police officer. The court examined the investigation process, noting that Sub-Inspector Jhala and Sub-Inspector Pathan, subordinate officers, conducted parts of the investigation under the supervision of the special police officer, Shri Desai. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in the Delhi Administration case, which held that the special police officer could be assisted by subordinate officers. The court found that the special police officer verified the statements of material witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet, fulfilling his role in the investigation. The court concluded that the provisions of the Act were complied with, as the special police officer maintained overall supervision and made the final decision on submitting the charge-sheet.The court also addressed the argument that defects in the investigation process could affect the trial's validity. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that defects or irregularities in the investigation do not vitiate the trial unless they cause a miscarriage of justice or prejudice the defence. The court found no evidence of prejudice or miscarriage of justice in this case and upheld the conviction and punishment of the appellant.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appellant's contentions regarding the validity of the appointment of the special police officer and the compliance with the investigation provisions of the Act. The conviction and punishment of the appellant were maintained.