BHARGAVA, J.—This is an application in revision by Mst. Pyari against her conviction under sec. 3 and 7 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). She had been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 21/- under sec. 3 and to one months rigorous imprisonment under sec. 7 of the Act. Both the sentences to run consecutively. 2. It appears that on 7th April, 1960 at about 4 P. M. Shri Hari Narain, Station House Officer, Manak Chowk, Jaipur (P.W. 7) was informed that Mst. Pyari, the prostitute, was keeping a brothel in a room within a place known as Shami ki Dharamshala situate outside Chandpol Gate, Jaipur. Shri Hari Narain met Abdulla (P.W. 2) and one Ibrahim near about the place where Mst. Pyari was living and on enquiry came to know that both of them were going to visit Mst. Pyari for having sexual intercourse with her. Thereupon he asked both of them to accompany him to the Police Station. At the Police Station both Abdulla and Ibrahim handed over currency notes of one rupee each to Shri Hari Narain, who got them initialled by Circle Inspector Shri Jiwan Singh and gave the notes back to Abdulla and Ibrahim for giving over to Mst. Pyari in return for sexual intercourse with her. Abdulla and Ibrahim accordingly went to Mst. Pyaris place and the police party including Shri Jiwan Singh, Circle Inspector, Shri Hari Narain Station House Officer, Smt. Sharda Verma, Lady Sub-Inspector and Shrimati Sushila Lady Head Constable also followed them. Reaching there the police party found Ibrahim sitting outside Mst. Pyaris room while Abdulla was inside it. The Circle Inspector and the Station House Officer before entering the room called out Abdulla but they were told from inside to stay a while. After some time the police party entered the room and found Abdulla and Mst. Pyari sitting on a cot in a compromised position. A search of Mst. Pyaris person was taken and one initialled one rupee currtney note was recovered from her pocket. The Lady Police Officers seized Mst. Pyaris trousers which she was wearing at that time, tied and sealed them in the presence of motbirs. These trousers were sent by the police for chemical examination. A case was registered under sec. A search of Mst. Pyaris person was taken and one initialled one rupee currtney note was recovered from her pocket. The Lady Police Officers seized Mst. Pyaris trousers which she was wearing at that time, tied and sealed them in the presence of motbirs. These trousers were sent by the police for chemical examination. A case was registered under sec. 3 and 7 of the Act against Mst. Pyari and after investigation a charge-sheet was presented against her in the court of the City Magistrate, Jaipur. The learned City Magistrate found her guilty of both the offences and sentenced her as mentioned above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal confirmed her conviction and sentence. Mst. Pyari during the trial denied the charge and stated that she had come from Tonk for a short stay and did not indulge herself in prostitution or in keeping a brothel. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are : (1) that the investigation in the case was illegal being in contravention of sec. 13 of the Act inasmuch as police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police dealt with the case, took search of Mst. Pyaris house, arrested her and did various acts connected with the investigation : (2), (a) that the search of Mst. Pyaris house was conducted in contravention of sec. 15 of the Act as no warrant was obtained nor were any grounds of the belief as are mentioned in sec. 18(1) of the Act were recorded by the police officer who made the search, (b) that two or more respectable inhabitants at-least one of whom should have been a woman were called at the time of search; (3) that the petitioner could not be held guilty under sec. 3 because she was not keeping a brothel; and(4) that she was not a prostitute as defined in the Act and, therefore, could not be convicted under sec. 7 of the Act. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. 3. Brothel is defined in sec. 2(a) as "brothel includes any house, room or place or any portion of any house, room or place which used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes". 3. Brothel is defined in sec. 2(a) as "brothel includes any house, room or place or any portion of any house, room or place which used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes". 2(e) "Prostitute means a female who offers her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind"; 2(f) Prostitution means the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind". 4. Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel is punishable under sec. 3. 5. Under sec. 7 any woman or girl who carries on prostitution in a public place is punishable. Sec. 13 provides that there shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences under the Act in that area. Sec. 13(2) provides that the special police officer shall not be below the rank of (a) an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the presidency towns of Madras and Calcutta; (b) a Superintendent of Police in the presidency town of Bombay; and (c) a Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere. Sec. 13(3)(a) provides that for the efficient discharge of his functions in relation to offences under the Act (d) the police officer of an area shall be assisted by such number of subordinate police officers (including woman police officers wherever practicable) as the S;ate Government may think fit. Sec. 14 deals with the powers of the special police officer to arrest persons guilty of offences under the Act either personally or through the officers subordinate to him. Sec.15 describes the manner in which the search of the premises is to be conducted. It appears that Shri K.D. Ghori (P.W. 12) Deputy Superintendent of police who was appointed as special officer by the State Government for dealing with the offences under the Act did not deal with the case in its initial stages. Shri Hari Narain, Station House Officer and Circle Inspector Shri Jiwan Singh handed over the currency notes to Abdulla and Ibrahim. They arrived at Mst. Pyaris house and recovered a one rupee currency note from Mst. Pyari, prepared the recovery memos and seized her cloths. Shri Hari Narain, Station House Officer and Circle Inspector Shri Jiwan Singh handed over the currency notes to Abdulla and Ibrahim. They arrived at Mst. Pyaris house and recovered a one rupee currency note from Mst. Pyari, prepared the recovery memos and seized her cloths. Then Mst. Pyari was brought before Shri K.D. Ghori (P.W. 12) who sanctioned her formal arrest. This is clear from the statement of Shri Ghori and the order of sanction of Mst. Pyaris arrest (Ex. P. 7). Thereafter, it appears from the statement of Shri Ghori that investigation was done by him. It also appears that the search of the premises was conducted by police officer who had no authority to do so because they were not special police officers under the Act nor did they mention their grounds of belief as required under sec. 15(1) of the Act. It was held by the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh(1) that the expression dealing with offences in sec. 13(1) is of wide import and will include any act which the police has to do in connection with the offences under the Act. The expression "function in relation to offences" in sec. 13(3) also includes his functions connected with the investigation of the offences. There is no reason to exclude such functions from the functions contemplated by sub-sec. (3). It was further held that "it is only the special police officer who is competent to investigate offences under the Act and that the police officers not specially appointed as special police officers cannot investigate the offences", under the Act even though they are cognizable offences". It is, therefore, clear that all acts which were done by Shri Hari Narain and Shri Jiwan Singh without the authority of Shri K.D. Ghori (P.W. 12) before Mst. Pyari was produced before him for formal arrest were in contravention of sec. 13 of the Act. Similarly the search of Mst. Pyaris house was conducted in contravention of the provisions of sec. 15(1) the provisions of which are analogous to the provisions of sec. 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rehman(2) held that "the recording of reasons is an important step in the matter of search and to ignore it is to ignore the material part of the provisions governing searches. 15(1) the provisions of which are analogous to the provisions of sec. 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rehman(2) held that "the recording of reasons is an important step in the matter of search and to ignore it is to ignore the material part of the provisions governing searches. If that can be ignored, it cannot be said that the search is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would be a search made in contravention of the provisions of the code". It, therefore, follows that the search conducted in this case was also illegal. One rupee currency note was, however, recovered on search of Mst. Pyaris person and therefore, no illegality is attached to it because sec. 15(2) prescribes the mode of search of the premises only. The question then is whether conviction of the petitioner can be set aside on these grounds. The above objections were not taken at the earlier stage of the case and it is only here in revision that these violations of law have been pointed out by the learned counsel. Undoubtedly the search and the investigation have been conducted in contravention of the provisions of the Act Hut that in my opinion would not vitiate the trial which has already resulted in conviction of the petitioner. Reference may be made to H.N. Rishbud Vs. State of Delhi (3), wherein it was held that: "If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report vitiated by the breach of mandatory provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. That an illegality committed in the course of investiga tion does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial is well settled, Hence, where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby." 6. In the present case no miscarriage of justice is shown to have been caused, and, therefore, on account of the aforesaid violations of law alone the conviction cannot be set aside. 7. In the present case no miscarriage of justice is shown to have been caused, and, therefore, on account of the aforesaid violations of law alone the conviction cannot be set aside. 7. It next remains to be seen whether the petitioners conviction under secs. 3 and 7 can be maintained. It would be clear from the definition of brothel, mentioned above, that the house, room or place or any portion of any house, room or place should be used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes. Under the Act prostitution by itself is not made punishable. A woman who prostitutes herself for her own livelihood save in the manner given in sec. 7 and 8 of the Act does not commit any criminal offence under this law which aims at the suppression of commercialised traffic in woman and girls for purposes of prostitution. In the present case there is no evidence that the premises were being used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of some other person. The premises used by the petitioner cannot, therefore, be called a brothel and the charge of keeping or managing a brothel against the petitioner must fail. The conviction of the petitioner under sec. 3 of the Act, therefore deserves to be set aside. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has also very frankly conceded that offence under sec. 3 is not made out against her. 8. It is established by the prosecution evidence that the petitioner had offered her body for sexual intercourse to Abdulla and Ibrahim. This is clear from the statement of Abdulla (P.W. 2), whose evidence has been believed by the courts below. His evidence also finds support from the fact that one rupee currency note initialled by the Circle Inspector was recovered from the person of Mst. Pyari. Abdulla and Mst. Pyari were seen sitting on a cot in a compromised position by Shri Hari Narain (P.W. 7), Smt. Sharda Verma (P.W. 8) and Smt. Sushila (P.W. 9). The contention of the learned counsel is that a single act of sexual intercourse by a woman would not bring her within the mischief of the section of the Act unless she had offered her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse. The contention of the learned counsel is that a single act of sexual intercourse by a woman would not bring her within the mischief of the section of the Act unless she had offered her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse. The word promiscuous has not been defined in the Act and its Dictionary (The Oxford English Dictionary Vol.VIII) meaning is without distinction. In Chambers Twentieth Centuary Dictionary its meaning is given as indiscriminate. It may well be that Mst. Pyari was the kept mistress of Annu Khan (P.W. 11) or that she might have occupied the premises only a day before as stated by Nadabudin P. W. 4 Mst. Shammi (P.W. 6) and Annu Khan (P.W. 11) but the fact that she offered her body to Abdulla and Ibrahim and in fact had sexual intercourse with Abdulla shows that she indulged in indiscriminate sexual intercourse. Mst. Pyari was, therefore, a prostitute as defined in the Act and since she indulged in prostitution at a place which was within a distance of 200 yards from a mosque, which fact is not disputed before me, she has been rightly found guilty under sec. 7 of the Act. I must say that the technique of employ- ing decoy witnesses for the detection of crime under the Act by the police in this case is against all standards of decency and shocks ones conscience. Such methods instead of preventing the evil are likely to encourage it. It has been deprecated by various courts in the country and I must also add my voice to it. 9. The result, therefore, is that this revision application is partly allowed and the conviction of the petitioner under sec. 3 of the Act is set aside and she is acquitted. Her conviction and sentence under sec. 7 of the Act is maintained. She has already served out the sentence passed on her under sec. 7 of the Act. She is on bail and she need not surrender to it.