S. P. RAJKHOWA, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 31-7-79 passed by Shri B. C. Paul, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, in case No. C/4394of 1976 dropping the proceeding under Section 18 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 [substituted by the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956] (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE facts in brief of the proceeding as seen from the complaint petition is that the premises No. 72, Premchand Baral Street, Police Station Muchipara, Calcutta 12 originally belonged to Late Mr. Ashutosh Chandra Dutta, husband of the petitioner. After the death of the husband, the petitioner as sole widow and three daughters and one son became the owners of the said premises. During his lifetime Late Mr. Dutta inducted a Hindu widow named Indu Bala Dassias a monthly tenant at will in respect of the aforesaid premises within the ambit and meaning of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956. After the death of Mr. Dutta the petitioner was collecting rents from the said Indu Bala Dassi who died on 9th March, 1976 leaving no legal heirs. The opposite party No. 1 used to pay all monthly rentals at regular intervals under the cloak of whole time domestic servant under the said Indu Bala Dassi. Some time thereafter the petitioner made an on spot enquiry through one Sankar Prasad Dutta, a bona fide duly authorised agent of the petitioner to see as to whether the premises were used for any other purposes and on such enquiry it revealed that the said Indu Bala Dassi was out and out a prostitute and that the O. P. No. 1 had been acting as pimp under her and Indu Bala converted the premises in question into regular brothel. But O. P. No. 1 tried to convince the petitioner both personally and by a series of letters through advocates that the said Indu Bala had been his second wife and the tenancy should be transferred in her name instantaneously. However, it was revealed upon the death of the said Indu Bala that the O. P. No. 1 in active connivance and concert with the O. P. Nos. 2 to 12 had been regularly and systematically running a brothel in the aforesaid premises. However, it was revealed upon the death of the said Indu Bala that the O. P. No. 1 in active connivance and concert with the O. P. Nos. 2 to 12 had been regularly and systematically running a brothel in the aforesaid premises. It further revealed that the said Indu Bala had been the widow of the Bibhuti Bhushan Ghosh and as such the claim set forth by O. P. No. 1 was cut out false. The premises are in the vicinity of a Shiva Temple where regularly men and women of polished quarters and/or highly cultured and accomplished families came to offer their religious offerings and the premises were surrounded by posh residential quarters and public place within a radius of 200 yards. Under the circumstances the petitioner prayed before the court to refer the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, with a direction to have the contents of the complaint duly inquired into by the Officer-in-Charge of Immoral Traffic Squad, Head Quarters, Force, Lalbazar and upon the perusal of the report to be pleased to issue notices as to why the aforesaid premises should not be attached for improper use thereof and cause the premises to be restored to the petitioner as contemplated within the ambit and meaning of Section 18 (1) (a) and (b) of the said Act. ( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, the learned Magistrate directed the police to make an enquiry into the allegations contained in the complaint. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the order of the learned Magistrate, Officer-in-Charge, Immoral Traffic Squad Sri S. K. Dutta made an inquiry and submitted his report dated 10-1-1977. Due notices were issued to the opposite parties and witnesses were also examined on oath. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 31-7-79 the learned Magistrate held that the instant proceeding was not maintainable as there was no proceeding or trial under Section 3 or Section 7 of the Act and accordingly dropped the proceeding. In doing so he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in A. C. Agarwall. Sub- Divisional Magistrate. Delhi and anr. v. Mst. Ramkali. ( 5 ) ON perusal of the aforesaid reported case 1 find that the facts of the instant case are almost similar. Shri Agarwall. In doing so he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in A. C. Agarwall. Sub- Divisional Magistrate. Delhi and anr. v. Mst. Ramkali. ( 5 ) ON perusal of the aforesaid reported case 1 find that the facts of the instant case are almost similar. Shri Agarwall. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi issued notices to the respondent to show cause as to why the premises occupied by them should not be attached under Section 18 (1) of the Act. In reply, amongst others, those respondents challenged the validity of Section 18. They moved the learned Magistrate to refer the question as to the validity of Section 18 to the High Court under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 [now Section 395 of Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (2 of 1974)]. The learned Magistrate, rejected that prayer and so the respondents; moved the High Court of Punjab under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench consisting of Mahajan and Samser Bahador, ruled that whenever action was taken under Section 18 independently of Section 7, it would offend Article 14 of the Constitution and to that extent Section 18 would be ultra vires of the Constitution. ( 6 ) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi came up before the Supreme Court in appeal against the decision of the Punjab High Court. The appeal was heard by the Constitution Bench presided over by Wanchoo, C. J. , and not only discussed the constitutional validity of Section 18 of the Act but also the scope and ambit of Sections 3, 7 and 14 of the Act and also Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 along with Section 14 of the Act. After discussing the provisions of law the Supreme Court rule that Section 18 provides for two classes of cases, namely, (1) those coming either under Section 3 or 7 as well as under Section 18, and (2) those coming only under Section 18. There are two distinct classes of cases - a classification which has reasonable relationship with the object sought to be achieved and therefore the difference in two procedures prescribed does not amount to discrimination under Article 14 and therefore Section 18 is not ultra vires as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. There are two distinct classes of cases - a classification which has reasonable relationship with the object sought to be achieved and therefore the difference in two procedures prescribed does not amount to discrimination under Article 14 and therefore Section 18 is not ultra vires as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. From the copies of the reports made in those cases to the learned Magistrate by the police and also made available before the Supreme Court it was clear that they disclosed offences under Section 3 against the respondents and so the Supreme Court further ruled that the Magistrate who is also a Court as provided in Section 22 of the must the first instance proceed against the persons complained against under the penal provisions in section 3 or 7 as the case maybe, and only after the disposal of those cases take action under Section 18 if there is occasion for it. Under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance of any cognizable offence brought to his notice. The words may take cognizance in the context means must take cognizance. He has no discretion in the matter, otherwise that Section will be violative of Article 14. ( 7 ) IN the instant case before me I find that the learned Magistrate has misread and misconstrued the aforesaid Supreme Court descision. I find that the complaint petition and the report of the police officer Mr. Dutt have clearly disclosed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the said Act. In fact, this is also the finding of the learned Magistrate. So the only appropriate course before the learned Magistrate was to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and to proceed with the trial under those sections and keeping the proceeding under Section 18 in abeyances till the disposal of the proceeding under the former Sections and the learned Magistrate was competent to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondents under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is acted to proceed in accordance with law. It is seen from the petition before this court that the respondent No. 1 had died. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is acted to proceed in accordance with law. It is seen from the petition before this court that the respondent No. 1 had died. So he cannot be proceeded against But under Section 18 there will be no bar to proceed against his legal heirs if there be any and if they are still occupying the said premises. ( 9 ) THE connected Rule is discharged. Before, I part with, I would like to record here a word of appreciation for the help rendered by the learned Government Advocate and the learned Advocate appearing as Amuus Curiae.