Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ravi Kumar Baldev Yadav and Kedar Dwarika Mandal, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai. The impugned order allowed the prosecution's application (Exh. 3) in S.C. No. 445 of 2016 and directed the sealing of the petitioners' premises under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA). The petitioners claimed to be the owners of Bungalow No. 229, Juhu Market, Opp. Shankar Market, Juhu Church Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai, which they had given on leave and license basis to one Ravi Mandal. The prosecution alleged that a raid was conducted on the premises based on secret information about prostitution activities, leading to the registration of C.R. No. 375 of 2016 under Sections 370(3) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 7(1)(b) of PITA. The petitioners were not accused in that case. The principal submission of the petitioners' counsel was that the application for sealing the premises was misconceived because the power under Section 18(1) of PITA vests with the Commissioner of Police, not with the Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon being directed by the court, produced a Notification dated 11.08.2006 issued by the Home Department, which specifically stated that the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, is an Executive Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate in the metropolitan area, and that the powers of a District Magistrate are conferred on the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of PITA. In light of this notification, the learned APP conceded that the application filed by the prosecution before the Sessions Court was not maintainable. The High Court, after perusing the papers and hearing the parties, held that the impugned order could not have been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the power under Section 18(1) vests with the Commissioner of Police. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed that the premises be de-sealed. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Power under Section 18(1) of PITA - The power to order closure of premises under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 vests with the Commissioner of Police, not with the Court. The Notification dated 11.08.2006 issued by the Home Department confers the powers of a District Magistrate on the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of the PITA. Consequently, an application filed by the prosecution before the Sessions Court seeking closure of premises was not maintainable, and the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 sealing the petitioners' premises, given that the power under that section vests with the Commissioner of Police.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai below Exh. 3 in S.C. No. 445 of 2016 is quashed and set aside. The premises in question shall be de-sealed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Power under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- 1956 vests with the Commissioner of Police
- not with the Court
- Notification dated 11.08.2006 confers powers of District Magistrate on Commissioner of Police for purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of PITA
- Application by prosecution before Sessions Court for sealing premises was not maintainable
