Bangalore District Court
Anjumala T. Nayak, Pi vs Rani M on 5 November, 2025
KABC030193572021
Digitally signed
DEEPA by DEEPA
VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 16-03-2021
Registered on : 16-03-2021
Decided on : 05-11-2025
Duration : 4 years, 7 months, 20 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 05th day of November, 2025
C.C. No.6522/2021
Crime No.10/2020
State by R.T. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Smt. Rani.M. - abated
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sri Late Machchendra,
R/at No.C2, Gagandeep
Apartment, Athmananda
Colony, 4th Cross,
Dinnuru Main Road,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru - 32.
KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
2. Sri Meraj Khan,
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Sri Sabeer Husen,
C/of No.C2, Gagandeep
Apartment, Athmananda
Colony, 4th Cross,
Dinnuru Main Road,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru - 32. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri. N. V. Manjunath Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 10-01-2020
offence
2. Date of FIR 10-01-2020
3. Date of Charge sheet 26-10-2020
4. Name of Complainant Smt. Anjumala T Nayak,
PI, CCB, Women
Protection Wing,
Bengaluru City.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 3, 4, 5 and
6 of ITP Act
6. Date of framing charge 10-08-2022
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
2
KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
8. Date of commencement 22-09-2022
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 31-10-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 05-11-2025
11. Final order Accused No.2 is acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of R.T. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On the receipt of credible information, on 10-01-2021, at about 2.00 p.m, Chandini Style Spot Unisex Parlor situated at 1 st Floor, Sri Complex, 80 Feet road within the limit of R.T. Nagara Police Station, the accused No.1 being owner and accused No.2 being manager of the said saloon were indulged in the prostitution by keeping CW4 namely Smt. Sundramma @ Roopa, CW5 namely Kum.Neha and CW6 namely Smt. Chandrika and hence CW1 namely Smt. Anjumala T Nayak, 3 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 Police Inspector along with CW2, CW3, CW7 to CW11 raided the said saloon and arrested the accused persons and seized cash, mobile phone and condom packets.
3. First Information Report: On receipt of credible information, CW1, PI, CCB, raided the Chandini Style Spot Unisex Parlor situated at 1 st Floor, Sri Complex, 80 Feet road within the limit of R.T. Nagara Police Station along with CW2, CW3, CW7 to CW11 and seized cash, mobile phone and condoms through spot cum seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1 and filed complaint as per Ex.P3.
4. Investigation: After receipt of report as per Ex.P3, CW12/PW6 Smt. Premakumari, WPSI registered Crime No.10/2020 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 ITP Act, prepared FIR as per Ex.P12, recorded the statements of requisite witnesses, victim, voluntary statement of accused, collected the documents of alleged parlor from BBMP and handed over the case papers to CW13. After receipt of case papers, CW13/PW4 Sri Mithun Shilpi, PI on completion of investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the alleged offences.
4KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
5. Accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail at pre-cognizance stage by the order dated 14-01-2020.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No.1 and 2.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.3, 4, 5 and 6 ITP Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused No. 2 in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. On account of death of accused No.1, the case against her was abated by order dated 27-01- 2025.
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 12 witnesses however examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents, MO1 and MO2 and closed their side. The presence of CW2 and CW3 could not be secured despite due examination of proclamation and hence dropped out 5 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 from examination by the order dated 25/11/2019. On account of examination of CW8, the examination of CW7, CW9 to CW11 were given up by the order dated 15-07-2025. The presence of CW6, CW3 and CW5 could not be secured for examination despite due execution of proclamation and hence dropped out from examination by the order dated 17-10-2025.
11. Statement of accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.2 examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
13. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10-01-2021, at about 2.00 p.m, Chandini Style Spot Unisex Parlor situated at 1st Floor, Sri Complex, 80 Feet road within the limit of R.T. 6 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 Nagara Police Station, the accused No.2 along with abated accused No.1 were indulged in the prostitution by keeping CW4 namely Smt. Sundramma @ Roopa, CW5 namely Kum.Neha and CW6 namely Smt. Chandrika thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act?
2. What order?
14. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
15. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the witnesses which are as follows 7 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 i. CW2 by name Sri Sheik Shaffir, pancha witness examined as PW1 pleaded ignorance about the contents of Seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1. In this regard, the learned Senior APP cross examined this witness by treating him as partial hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before the police is marked as Ex.P2.
ii. CW1 Smt. Anjumala T Nayak, the then PI, CCB, examined as PW2 deposed that on the receipt of credible information that prostitution was engaged at salon called Chandani Style Spot Uni Sex Parlor in RT Nagar, she along with CW7 to CW10 and pancha witnesses CW2 and CW3 went to the said place at 3.30 pm in a government vehicle and sent CW10 as a decoy and gave him Rs.2000/- to confirm about the incident. On receipt of confirmation by him, they raided parlor and found that the accused No.1 being owner and accused No.2 manager indulged in prostitution and rescued the victims namely Sundaramma @ Roopa, Neha and Chandrika and seized Rs.12750/-, mobile phones and condoms under Ex.P1 seizure mahazar and submitted before SHO and filed a complaint as per Ex.P3. Further she identified 7 photos of money as per Ex.P4 to Ex. P. 10 and 2 condoms and 1 phone as MO1 and MO2 respectively.
8KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 iii. CW4 by name Smt. Sundrappa @ Roopa, victim examined as PW3 deposed that, accused No.1 is the owner of parlor and she has been working therein for 8 years along with Neha and Mangala and accused No.2. In the year 2020, while she was working at the said parlor, the police came and inquired her by making a video on mobile phone.
iv. CW13/PW4 by name Sri Mithun Shilpi, the then PI deposed that after receipt of case papers from CW12, he continued the investigation and submitted charges sheet against accused.
v. CW8 by name Sri Nawaz Khan, the then HC examined as PW5 deposed that on 10-01-2020, on the receipt of information that Chandini Style Spa Unisex parlour, situated at 1st Floor, Sri Complex, 80 Feet Road, R.T. Nagar, where accused persons were engaged in prostitution by giving an Add on the website and receiving customers and hence he along with CW1, CW6, 7, 9 and 10 went to the place, sent CW10 as decoy by giving him Rs.2000/- of Rs. 500 notes of denominations (4 nos). After confirmation, they raided said spot and found CW10 with woman named Sundaramma and in another room they found Neha and Chandrika. Thereafter, they seized Rs.12,750/- and two condoms under Ex.P1, produced them before police station.
9KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 vi. CW12/PW6 Smt. Premakumari, the then WPSI deposed that on the basis of report submitted by CW1, she registered FIR, recorded the statements of requisite witnesses and voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 2. Since the accused No.1 Rani is a woman, she was sent to Sumangali Seva Ashram, secured the documents in respect of the parlor from BBMP departments and handed over the case papers to CW13 for further investigation.
16. The relevant provision for the deciding the charges framed against accused are Section 3 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, deals with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.
3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.
(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous 10 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
(2) Any person who
(a)being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses,or knowingly allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or
(b)being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the use of such premises or any 11 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine.
(2A) For the purposes of sub-
section (2)it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that any person referred to in clause(a) or clause(b) of that subsection,is knowingly allowing the premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or, as the case maybe, has knowledge that the premises or any part thereof are being used as a brothel, if,
(a) a report is published in a newspaper having circulation in the area in which such person resides to the effect that the premises or any part thereof have been found to be used for 12 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 prostitution as a result of a search made under this Act; or
(b) a copy of the list of all things found during the search referred to in clause (a) is given to such person].
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,on conviction of any person referred to in clause
(a) or clause (b) of subsection (2) of any offence under that sub-
section in respect of any premises or any part thereof, any lease or agreement under which such premises have been leased out or are held or occupied at the time of the commission of the offence, shall become void and inoperative with effect from the date of the said conviction.
Section 2(a) defines a "brothel" as includes any house, room, conveyance or place or any portion of any house, room, conveyance or place, which is used for purposes of sexual 13 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 exploitation or abuse or for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes".
Section 4 of the Act deals with punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution as under:
4. Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution.
(1) Any person over the age of eighteen years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of [any other person] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years,or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both [and where such earnings relate to the prostitution of a child or a minor, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than ten years].
14KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 (2) Where any person over the age of eighteen years is proved (a) to be living with, or to be habitually in the company of, a prostitute; or
(b) to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that such person is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution; or
(c) to be acting as a tout or pimp on behalf of a prostitute, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of another person within the meaning of subsection Section 5 of the Act deals with procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution which reads as under:
5. Procuring, inducing or taking [person] for the sake of prostitution.
15KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 (1) Any person who--
(a) procures or attempts to procure a [person], whether with or without [his] consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or 1[person], whether with or without 2[his] consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or"
(b) induces a [person] to go from any place, with the intent that [he] may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or 1[person] to go from any place, with the intent that 3[he] may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or"
(c) takes or attempts to take a [person], or causes a [person] to be taken, from one place to another with a view to [his] carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or
(d) causes or induces a [person] to carry on prostitution,1[person] to carry on prostitution, [shall be 16 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 punishable on conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and not more than seven years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and if any offence under this sub section is committed against the will of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years.
6)xxx
17. The term "Prostitution" is defined in clause
(f) of Section of the Act which reads as under
(f) "Prostitution" means the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes, and the expression "prostitute" shall be construed accordingly.
From a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that "prostitution" is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act. Mere handing over of money or receipt of money is not sufficient to bring home the charge under the Act or fasten the guilt unless there is evidence to show that the money 17 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 was accepted or demanded for the purpose of prostitution.
18. Based upon the provision of law, this court had gone through the evidence of PW2/Raiding officer and the same has been extracted as under
ದಿಃ 10-1-2020 ರಂದು ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರದ ಚಾಂದನಿ ಸ್ಟೆೃಲ್ ಸ್ಪಾಟ್ ಯೂನಿ ಸೆಕ್ಸ್ ಪಾರ್ಲರ್ ಎಂಬ ಸಲೂನಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವೇಶ್ಯಾವಾಟಿಕೆ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು ಬಂದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ.7 ರಿಂದ 10 ಹಾಗೂ ಪಂಚರಾದ ಚಾಸಾ.2 ಮತ್ತು 3 ರವರ ಜೊತೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ 3.30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಚಾಸಾ.10 ರವರನ್ನು ಡಿಕಾಯಿಯಾಗಿ ರೂ.2000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಖಚಿತಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ತಿಳಿಸಲು ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಅವರು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಸೂಚನೆ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಪಾರ್ಲರ್ ಮೇಲೆ ದಾಳಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಇದ್ದು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಪಾರ್ಲರಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕರಾಗಿದ್ದು, 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಕೆಲಸಗಾರನಾಗಿದ್ದು ಅವರಿಗೆ ವಿಷಯ ತಿಳಿಸಿ, ಒಂದು ರೂಮಿಗೆ ದಾಳಿ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ ಡಿಕಾಯಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸುಂದರಮ್ಮ (ಅ) ರೂಪಾ ಎಂಬ ಒಂದು ಹುಡುಗಿ ಇದ್ದು, ಆಕೆಯನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಸಲೂನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊರಗಿನಿಂದ ಗಿರಾಕಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ವೇಶ್ಯಾವಾಟಿಕೆ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಬಂದ ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಹಣವನ್ನು ತಮಗೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಸದರಿ ರೂಮಿನಲ್ಲಿ 2 ಕಾಂಡೋಮ್ ಗಳು ದೊರಕಿರುತ್ತವೆ. ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ರೂಮಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನೇಹಾ ಮತ್ತು ಚಂದ್ರಿಕಾ ಎಂಬ ಹುಡುಗಿಯರು ಇದ್ದು ಅವರು ಸಹ ಸಲೂನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊರಗಿನಿಂದ ಗಿರಾಕಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ವೇಶ್ಯಾವಾಟಿಕೆ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಬಂದ ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಹಣವನ್ನು ತಮಗೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.18
KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 and the statement of CW10 ನಂತರ ಮೀರಜ್ ಎಂಬುವರು ನನ್ನಿಂದ ೨೦೦೦/- ರೂಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಸಲೂನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಪಾ ನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಹುಡಿಗಿಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆ ಈ ರೂಮ್ಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದರು. ನನ್ನನು ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಕ್ರಿಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಏನು ತಿಳಿಸದರು.
However the said CW10 is the one who could depose what is happened in the room after giving the money to the accused No.2 however he has been given up from examination on account of examination of CW8.
18. It was upon the prosecution to prove that the CW10 was alleged to be projected to the accused No.1 and 2 to the decoy customer for indulging in prostitution as per Section 2f of ITP Act.
19. Although it is stated in the statement under Sec 162 of CRPC that he went and confirmed by paying the money to the accused No. 2 however his statement does not disclose how he communicated to the PW2 about him and the PW3 sent to one room for having sexual intercourse when it was a SPA.
As such, the prosecution failed to prove that there was an overt act on the part of said PW3 upon the CW10 namely Sri Parashuram apart from receiving the money from CW10.
19KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
20. Mere acceptance of money from CW10 by the accused No.1 and 2 and in absence of other evidence of any other evidence of any other overt act leading to sexual intercourse is hardly sufficient to prove that the money was received for the purpose of prostitution and as such prosecution failed to show that the CW4 to CW6 squarely falls within the provision of ITP Act.
21. The denomination of notes and particulars of note sent through decoy -CW10 was not mentioned in the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1 and no special identification was made at the time of sending the CW10 as a decoy in the denomination of notes.
22. The alleged offences under section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are cognizable offences. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 14 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are Offences to be cognizable which reads as under
- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), any offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the 20 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 meaning of that Code: Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in that Code,-
(i) arrest without warrant may be made only by the special police officer or under his direction or guidance, or subject to his prior approval;
(ii) when the special police officer requires any officer subordinate to him to arrest without warrant otherwise than in his presence any person for an offence under this Act, he shall give that subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the person to be arrested and the offence for which the arrest is being made; and the latter officer before arresting the person shall inform him of the substance of the order and, on being required by such person, show him the order;
(iii) any police officer not below the rank of inspector specially authorised by the special police 21 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 officer may, if he has reason to believe that on account of delay involved in obtaining the order of the special police officer, any valuable evidence relating to any offence under this Act is likely to be destroyed or concealed, or the person who has committed or is suspected to have committed the offence is likely to escape, or if the name and address of such a person is unknown or there is reason to suspect that a false name or address has been given, arrest the person concerned without such order, but in such a case he shall report, as soon as may be, to the special police officer the arrest and the circumstances in which the arrest was made.
The offenses being cognizable in nature, PW2 has arrested the accused No.1 and 2 without registration of FIR however the PW2 has not tendered any explanation in writing before proceeding with the raid as per section 14 of I. T. P. Act.
22KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
23. It appears from the record that accused No. 2 with vehemence argued that the procedure for search was not followed as per Section 15 of ITP Act. In this regard, it is relevant to mention Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 which reads as under
15. Search without warrant.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, whenever the special police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence punishable under this Act has been or is being committed in respect of a woman or girl living in any premises, and that search of the premises with warrant cannot be made without undue delay, such officer may, after recording the grounds of his belief, enter and search such premises without a warrant.
(2) Before making a search under sub-section (1), the special police officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to 23 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(3) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects, to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(4) The special police officer entering any premises under sub-
section (1) shall be entitled to remove therefrom any girl, if in his opinion she is under the age of twenty-one years and is carrying on or is being made to carry on, or attempts are being made to make her carry on, prostitution.
(5) The special police officer, after removing the girl under sub-
24KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 section (4) forthwith produce her before the appropriate magistrate.
(6) The special police officer and other persons taking part in, or attending, and witnessing a search shall not be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings against them in respect of anything lawfully done in connection with, or for the purpose of, the search.
Thus, from the plain reading of Sub-section 2 of the above section 15, it is evident that the raid could be conducted only in the presence of two or more witnesses of the locality particularly two persons should be present to witness the raid should be respectable people from the locality, and one should be a woman, and if no woman could be found in the locality, a woman could be brought from some other locality to witness the raid. However CW2 namely Sri Shaik Safeer Aged about 37 years, S/o. Ummar Daraj resident of No.10/3, K.H.M. Block, 5th Main, Opposite Shantisagar, R T Nagar, Bangalore and CW3 namely Sri Mahesh Aged about 30 years, S/o. Sri Rachegowda resident of No. 126, II Main, 3 rd Cross, R. B I. Layout, J.P. Nagar 7 th Phase Bangalore - 5600678 was present however the alleged spot at Chandini Style Spot Unisex Parlor situated at 1 st 25 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 Floor, Sri Complex, 80 Feet road, R.T. Nagara and was bounded on the North by H & G Glow Store and South by Hallbake Restaurant Hotel. The independent witnesses from the local inhabitants were not secured though there were commercial shops and buildings and woman from the said locality.
24. The presence of CW2 and CW3 could not be secured for proving the authenticity of Ex.P1 (seizure cum spot mahazar).
25. The prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances the alleged CW2 and CW3 secured by the PW2 at the time of drawing of Ex.P1 to accept the evidence of PW2 and PW5.
26. In the present case, the recovery of said Rs. 12,750/-, mobile and 2 condoms from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 and CW4 to CW6 was an important piece of evidence as it is the case of prosecution that the accused No.1 and 2 was using them for prostitution against their consent however the presence of CW5 and CW6 were not secured and PW3 did not support the prosecution case.
26KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
27. As observed above, the provisions of ITP Act are are to be construed strictly against the prosecution, it is for the prosecution to show that the said notes of Rs.12,750/- were kept safely in the hands of third party (officers who are unrelated to the case) immediately after the raid. As the prosecution failed to adduce any such evidence that seized notes were immediately deposited in the safe custody and the same amounts to lapse on the part of prosecution.
28. Furthermore, the decoy /CW10 namely Sri Parashuram is none other than police official was deputed as a trap witness and in the interest of prosecution, the police officials cannot be used as a trap witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab reported in (2015) 3 SCC 220 held that the trap witness is an interested witness and his statement is required corroboration and the corroboration would depend upon the facts and circumstances, nature of the crime and character of trap witness. The statement of trap witness is clear that he did not do any overt act for sexual intercourse except giving the money to the accused No. 2 which is in favour of accused No. 2 as they were running SPA.
29. In addition to which, no neighbor have been made as a witness in this case, creates doubt on the prosecution case.
27KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
30. PW4 or PW6 has not examined the ground floor of the same building and the adjacent owners of commercial building nor recorded their statements. The adjacent owners or employees of building situated on the north and southern side are not examined by the prosecution, which creates doubt.
31. On considering the entire evidence of the prosecution and the documents adduced by them, it can be discerned that in case of cognizable offences before registration of FIR, the investigation cannot be done however in the present case, even before registering F.I.R, the search, seizure mahazar and taking of accused to their custody was done.
32. The examined witness namely PW1, PW2, PW4 to PW6 are all official witness has not been successful to prove the case of the Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, seizure Panchanama at Ex.P1 cannot be relied upon. Basing only on the version of official witnesses, the charges do not stand proved against the accused. Thus the prosecution failed in proving the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
33. Further, on considering the evidence of all the witness on record, it is relevant to note that the evidence of public servants cannot be disbelieved 28 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 however they are interested in the success of prosecution case. Considering the various discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution makes it doubtful to believe the version of the prosecution in toto as discussed above. Based only on the evidence of these official witnesses namely PW1, PW2, PW4 to PW6, the guilt of the accused cannot be concluded.
34. The evidence on record does not prove that the accused No.1 and 2 was carrying on brothel business on the date of alleged raid by the PW2 and her staff. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that the accused has committed the offences charged against them. Accordingly, this court answers points No.1 in the Negative
35. Point No.2: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused deserves to be an order of acquittal for the offences charged against him in this case. In the result, therefore, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.29
KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021
(i) The accused No.2 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 shall be destroyed and MO2 and item No.1 i.e., Rs.12,750/-in PF No.03/2020 is confiscated to State Govt.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 5th day of November, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
30KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Sheik Shafeer Pancha witness PW2: Smt. Anjumala T PI/informant Nayak PW3: Smt. Sundramma @ Victim Roopa PW4: Sri Mithun Shilpi PI/Partial IO PW5: Sri Nawaz Khan HC PW6: Smt Premakumari WPSI Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Mahazar PW1
Ex.P2: Statement of PW1
Ex.P3: Complaint PW2
Ex.P4 Photographs PW2
to P10:
Ex.P11: Statement of PW3
Ex.P12: FIR PW6
Ex.P13: Registration Certificate of PW6
Establishment
Ex.P14: Trade License Renewal Certificate 31 KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1-2 : Two Mobiles Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.32
KABC030193572021 CC No.6522/2021 5-11-25 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.2 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 shall be destroyed and MO2 and item No.1 i.e., Rs.12,750/-in PF No.03/2020 is confiscated to State Govt.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
33