Why charge accused under section that doesn’t exist in immoral trafficking Act: Court asks Chandigarh police

When Satish Kumar, who headed the raid at the salon, came, the court asked him to explain how Section 5A was imposed as it was not a notified section. To this, the DSP admitted that the section was wrongly mentioned in the FIR and the court then directed him to record his statement in the matter.

Written by JAGPREET SINGH SANDHU | Chandigarh | Published: July 5, 2018 8:13:35 am
Why charge accused under section that doesn’t exist in immoral trafficking Act: Court asks Chandigarh police Mandsaur victim’s statement likely today, jailer fears accused could be attacked

CHANDIGARH POLICE officials were left red-faced when the district court on Wednesday asked them to explain why they charged an accused under a section that does not exist in The Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. The matter came to light when Chief Judicial Magistrate Akshdeep Mahajan was hearing the arguments for the bail of two accused in the immoral trafficking Act case registered at Manimajra PS.

The bail of one of the accused, i.e the manager of Tressed Up salon, Sameer, was dismissed by the court later. Prior to the order, the court asked a Chandigarh Police inspector about why Section 5A was mentioned in the FIR. The court then summoned DSP (East), Satish Kumar, for wrongly imposing the section on the accused.

When Satish Kumar, who headed the raid at the salon, came, the court asked him to explain how Section 5A was imposed as it was not a notified section. To this, the DSP admitted that the section was wrongly mentioned in the FIR and the court then directed him to record his statement in the matter.

Advocate C L Das, counsel for the accused Sameer, said initially a Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) of the case appeared in court and later the court summoned the DSP regarding the matter. As per the acts, there was no notified section like 5A, it could be sections 5 and 5(1). The court removed Section 5A from the FIR after recording the DSP’s statement.

The case was registered on June 11, when the accused owner of the salon, Tressed Up, Mehboob, and its manager Sameer were arrested and the police booked them under sections 3, 4, 5, 5A and 7 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. On Wednesday, the court rejected the bail plea of Sameer. And, the bail plea of Mehboob had already been rejected earlier. The duo was arrested for allegedly being involved in immoral trafficking at Manimajra, Chandigarh. The police had rescued two victims of the prostitution racket from the premises and handed them over to their guardians.

Also in Sector 47 trafficking case

On June 25, in a similar case registered at Sector 31 PS, Chandigarh Police busted a prostitution racket at a salon in Sector 47 and arrested four persons, including two girls and the owner. The racket was being run from a salon, named Modern Look. Police have registered a case under sections 3, 4, 5A, 6 and 7 of the immoral trafficking Act.
The accused in this case, Gaurav, is out on bail. However, another accused, Shallu, was denied bail on Wednesday.

For all the latest Chandigarh News, download Indian Express App

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement