Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 315 (KAR)

BANGALORE NATUROPATHY, YOGA CENTRE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1987-09-25

M.RAMA JOIS

body1987
RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners have questioned the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 ('the Act'for short) designating the police officers specified in the said notification as Special Police officers for the areas specified in the corresponding entry. ( 2 ) THE plea of the petitioners is as follow : in view of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 13 of the'act, only a Police Officer designated as a Special police Officer by the State Government, has the authority and power to investigate into the offences alleged to have been committed, which fall within the description of 'offence' under the Act. The clear meaning xxx of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 is, that in respect of any particular area not more than one Police officer xxxx could be appointed as Special Police Officer particularly in view of the words "a Special Police Officer". In order to substantiate the point, the learned counsel invited my attention to the impugned notification. The same reads : home SECRETARIAT notification No. HD 130 PCR 86 bangalore, dated 18th September 1986 - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act X of 1897), the Government of Karnataka hereby amends the Notification No. HD 176 PCR 78, dated 6th december 1978 as follows : - in the Schedule of the said Notification, for the entries relating to SI. Nos. 1 to 6 the following entries shall be substituted, namely :-