Mumbai Commissioner Of Police Has Powers Of A District Magistrate For The Purposes Of Sections 18 & 20 Of The Prevention Of Immoral Trafficking Act: Bombay HC

Justice Revati Mohite Dere was hearing a writ petition filed by Ravi Yadav and Kedar Mandal who owned premises in Juhu that had been sealed by a Sessions Judge in Dindoshi under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (PITA).

Section 18(1) of the said act is regarding closure of brothel and evicting of offenders from the premises.

Case Background

Petitioner's counsel Prabhanjay Dave argued that the said order was unsustainable in law as the power under Section 18(1) (2) vests with the police ie, the Commissioner of Police and not with the Court. He relied on two show-cause notices issued by the Commissioner of Police under Section 18(1) of the said act.

Additional Public Prosecutor Veera Shinde produced a copy of the Notification dated August 11, 2006 issued by the Home Department, wherein it is specifically stated that the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai to be an Executive Magistrate in the metropolitan area of Brihan Mumbai and Additional District Magistrate in the metropolitan area of Brihan Mumbai and that the powers of a District Magistrate are conferred on the Commissioner of Police, within the metropolitan area of Brihan Mumbai, for the purposes of Sections 18 & 20 of the PITA.

According to the petitioners, they gave their bungalow in Juhu area to one Ravi Mandal on lease and license basis. As per the prosecution's case, police received secret information that prostitution activities were going on in the said premises, a raid was conducted and the accused were arrested. Petitioners are not the accused in the said case which was registered with the Juhu Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 370(3) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7(1)(b) of the PITA.

During the pendency of the trial, the prosecution filed an application praying therein that the said premises be closed, where the raid was conducted. In the said application, it was further stated that the said premises was within 200 meters of a public place and hence, should be closed.

Judgment

After perusing through the notification dated August 11, 2006, Court concluded that the same was issued in compliance with Supreme Court's decision in AN Roy,Commissioner Of Police & Anr vs Suresh Sham Singh dated July 4, 2006. Justice Dere observed-

"In view of the Notification dated 11.08.2006, it is apparent that it is the Commissioner of Police who can pass an order under Section 18 of the PITA and the learned Sessions Judge was not competent to seal the premises under Section 18(1) of the PITA. In fact, the Application filed by the prosecution itself was misconceived, having regard to the Notification dated 11.08.2006."

Quashing and setting aside the order by Dindoshi Court, Justice Dere directed the Commissioner of Police to re-circulate the said notification dated August 11, 2006 issued by the Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to all the police stations for their information.

Click here to download the Judgment