Delhi District Court
Jumrati vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTHEAST
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
IN RE:
CR No. 428/17 ID No. DLSE010066742017
1. Jumrati
S/o Shri Rohit Shah
R/o T73A, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin
Near Albi Chowk, New Delhi13
2. Shamiuddin
S/o Sh. Salimuddin
R/o Town and PS Gulawati,
Tehsil and District Bulandsahar, U.P. .... Revisionists
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 04.09.2017
Date of arguments : 29.11.2017
Date of Judgment
:
13.12.2017
JUDGMENT
1. At the very outset, I would like to mention that the FIR no. 288/03 IPC PS Hazrat Nizamuddin (CB) u/s 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "ITP Act") was registered in CR No. 428/2017 1 of 8 the year 2003 and it was only on 24.05.2017 that the charges could be framed against the accused in the said FIR. The trial court record would reveal that in all these years the court has been busy in securing the presence of the accused, initiating coercive process against them and a number of accused in the FIR had to be declared proclaimed offender / absconder.
2. The present revision has been preferred by the accused / revisionists Jumrati and Shamiuddin challenging the order dated 05.04.2017 and 24.05.2017 whereby the court held that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for the offence under section 3, 4 and 5 ITP Act and the charge was accordingly framed on 24.05.2017.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an information was received on 06.06.2003 in the office of Crime Branch Prashant Vihar that a brothel is being run by one Firoz Khan and his wife Tahira in House No. T73, Nala Wali Basti, Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi. A team was formed with one Bhagwan Singh as a public witness and they reached near the premises in question. The informer was with the team who identified one Jumrati @ Samuel (revisionist herein) and Sarfaraz, who were standing near the house. Two decoy customers namely SI Ajay Gupta and SI Ranbir Singh were deputed to interact and struck a deal with them and they were handed over currency note of Rs.500/ each duly signed by the IO. SI Ajay Gupta met Jumrati and SI Ranbir Singh met Sarfaraz and they struck a deal. The decoy CR No. 428/2017 2 of 8 customers were shown some girls, who were brought down from the upstairs of the house T73, Nalawali Basti, Hazrat Nizamuddin and they were told that Rs.500/ will be charged from them. The decoy customer identified the girls with whom they wanted to spend time. The decoy customers were asked to first give money and then go inside the house. After the said deal was thus struck, SI Ajay Gupta gave Rs.500/ to Jumrati and SI Ranbir gave Rs.500/ to Sarfaraz. SI Ajay Gupta thus went with one Ms. Pinki and SI Ranbir Singh with one Ms. Mumtaz (both were accused in the case but now absconded). The entire proceedings were watched by the ACP and the public witness Bhagwan Singh, who was a shadow witness. As soon as SI Ajay Gupta and SI Ranbir Singh went upstairs, the police party also reached at the place following them at the first floor of the house. Jumrati, Sarfaraz, Pinki, Mumtaz and Yasmin were apprehended. From the possession of Jumrati and Sarfaraz, the signed currency note of Rs.500/ was recovered. It was told that two women namely Ishrana and Farhin are present in separate rooms with their customers. Ishrana was found in the room with the accused Shamiuddin (revisionist herein) and Farhin was found in the room with Nadim and Shamim, both accused. After the apprehension of Jumrati, he disclosed that the house belongs to Firoz Khan and Tahira, who runs the brothel. However, neither of them were found at the ground floor where they used to stay. Rest of the accused, who were apprehended from the spot were arrested and after completing the CR No. 428/2017 3 of 8 investigation, chargesheet was filed against them.
4. Section 3 of ITP Act provide punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. It says that any person who keeps, manages, acts or assists in keeping or management of a brothel shall be punished accordingly under section 3. Section 4 of ITP Act provide punishment for a person who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person. Section 5 of the ITP Act provides punishment for procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution.
5. Section 2(a) defines 'brothel' as any place including a room, house, conveyance etc. or any portion thereof used for sexual exploitation or abuse for the gain of any person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes.
6. The learned counsel for the revisionists had argued that none of the sections are attracted in the present case. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the revisionists were running the brothel, therefore, they were liable for the offence u/s 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act.
7. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State Crl. Revision Petition No. 513/2004 decided on 18.09.2009, the Hon'ble High Court has discussed the power of revisional court and has held as under : "It would be apt to recall that a Court exercising reivisional jurisdiction cannot go into intricate details as regards the merits of a matter and may CR No. 428/2017 4 of 8 interfere only when there is any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower court. A revisional court cannot act as a court of appeal and reappraise the merits of the case. Thus the task that lay before me is to see whether the trial Court carefully applied the law with regard to framing of charge to the facts of this case and if there is any infirmity in the impugned order."
8. The Hon'ble High Court also observed "at the stage of framing of charge only a prima facie case is to be seen" and held as under : "Thus at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not supposed to look into the evidence of the case in detail and is only to consider whether there is a strong suspicion against the accused on the basis of the material that comes before it. The court has the power to sift the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out, whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused. However, the Court is not supposed to delve deeply into the merits of the matter and start a roving expedition into the evidence that is brought forth it, as if conducting a trial. Further there is no one fixed definition that may be ascribed to the term "prima facie" nor can the term "strong suspicion" have a singular meaning. While coming to the conclusion of a strong prima facie case or strong suspicion, the Court shall have to decide each case on the basis of its own independent facts and circumstances."
Against revisionist Jumrati
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist Jumrati that no offence against him is made out. However, this revision filed by the accused / revisionist Jumrati is devoid of any legal basis and is a sheer wastage of time. It is the very case of the prosecution that it was Jumrati CR No. 428/2017 5 of 8 who met SI Ajay Gupta, who was handed over Rs.500/ currency note which was duly signed by the IO and SI Ajay Gupta struck a deal with him. It was Jumrati, who called girls from the first floor and had shown them to the decoy customer SI Ajay Gupta. The currency note of Rs.500/ which was duly signed by the IO was recovered from the possession of accused Jumrati and it was Jumrati, who had disclosed about the ownership of their house and that was being paid by Firoz Khan and Tahira for procuring the customers. This much of evidence is sufficient to frame charge against the accused for offence u/s 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act. Firstly, he was arrested in the brothel, he was living on the earning of prostitutes and thirdly, he was instrumental in procuring girls for the purpose of prostitution.
10. At this stage, the court is not to see whether the evidence will be sufficient for his conviction. The court has only to see whether the charge can be framed against him to put him on trial for these offences. I am of the view that the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in putting the accused / revisionist Jumrati to trial for the offences u/s 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act.
Against revisionist Shamiuddin
11. So far as the revisionist Shamiuddin is concerned, I have found that the offence u/s 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act is not attracted against him. As per the chargesheet filed, the accused Shamiuddin was found in a room at the first floor of the house with one of the prostitutes Ishrana and there is no CR No. 428/2017 6 of 8 provision in the ITP Act for punishment to the person with whom any person carry out the prostitution except section 7 of the Act. Section 7 however has certain conditions before it can be applied to any person. A person with whom the prostitution is carried out will be liable for the punishment only if the premises where the prostitution is being conducted is falls in any notified area or the premises is within a distance of about 200 meters of a place of public worship, education institutions, hostel, hospital, nursing home etc or any other place as may be notified by the Commissioner of Police. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that Shamiuddin was running the brothel or he was living on the earning of a prostitute or was procuring prostitute in any manner. He was simply a customer with one of the prostitute in premises. The prosecution has not placed any material on record to show that the premises in question was either falling in the notified area or was within a distance of 200 meters of any place of public worship, education institutions etc.
12. The trial court has not considered this aspect while framing charge against accused / revisionist Shamiuddin for the offence u/s 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.04.2017 and 24.05.2017 qua the revisionist Shamiuddin is set aside and he stands discharged for the offence u/s 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act.
13. The revision petition is partly accepted and the impugned order against the revisionist Shamiuddin is set aside. However, the impugned CR No. 428/2017 7 of 8 order is upheld qua the revisionist Jumrati, who shall face the trial accordingly.
14. In view of aforementioned facts, the revision petition is disposed off. A true copy of the order along with trial court record be sent to the trial court concerned.
15. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
court today i.e. 13.12.2017 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No. 428/2017 8 of 8