2. Petitioner's case can be summarized as follows:
Petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 115/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna. Prosecution case is that on 11.12.2003 at about 01.00 p.m., the Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna conducted a search in the lodge run by the petitioner and found that the accused No. 2 to 7 were inside the lodge rooms engaged in prostitution for money. Accused No. 2 to 7 were arrested and the case was registered. Thereafter, Circle Inspector, Pandikkad conducted the investigation, questioned the witnesses and filed charge under Secs. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').
3. According to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Act, arrest and investigation has to be conducted by a Special Police Officer as provided under Section 2(i) and 13 of the Act. It is also his contention that there is no provision under Section 14(ii) of the Act to empower the special police officer to authorise investigation of the case to be conducted by any other officer.
4. In this case, the investigation conducted by Circle Inspector, Pandikkad is without any authority since the place of occurrence is within the jurisdiction of Perinthalmanna police station. It is also contended that none of the offences under the Act is attracted against the petitioner and the ingredients of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 are also not attracted. Hence, this is a clear abuse of process of court, the learned counsel contends.
5. Notice was issued to the respondent. Smt. V. Sreeja, learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent-State. Heard both sides.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was instituted against the petitioner and the other accused based upon a search conducted in the lodge run by the petitioner by the Circle Inspector, Perinthalmanna. But the investigation was conducted and witnesses were questioned by the Circle Inspector, Pandikkad who is not a special police officer as defined under the Act. Hence the entire proceedings against the petitioner are vitiated and are not sustainable in law.
7. Sections 13 and 14 (ii) of the Act are relevant in this context, to be extracted:
"13. Special police officer and advisory body.-(1) There shall be for such 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 this Act in that area.
(2) The special police officer shall not be below th........