Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Dilip Jana vs The State Of West Bengal on 1 July, 2009
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 983 of 2009 Sri Dilip Jana versus The State of West Bengal For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Dhar Mr. Amit Chakraborty For State : Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy Heard On : June 15th, 2009.
Judgment On : 01-07-2009.
This is an application for quashing of a charge-sheet relating to offence punishable under Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. Heard Mr. Amit Chakraborty, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the Case Diary.
3. Mr. Chakraborty appearing in support of this application, relying on an unreported decision of this Hon'ble Court relating to the C.R.R. No. 2032 of 2007, in the case of Ashoke Giri Vs. The State, vehemently urged that the present petitioner is standing on the same footing with the petitioner of the said criminal revision. He further submitted the entire allegations as against the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal revision as well as the petitioner in the instant criminal revision are identical and as such, in view of the aforesaid decision of this Hon'ble Court, the impugned proceeding as against the present petitioner is also liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, learned Counsel for the State, opposed the prayer for quashing. Mr. Roy produced the Case Diary and submitted that the allegations are very serious and the present petitioner was arrested from the spot for his involvement in the commission of the offences punishable under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Mr. Roy also produced the supplementary charge-sheet submitted by the police during further investigation.
4. Having gone through the Case Diary, I find it is no doubt true that the allegations against the present petitioner as well as one Ashoke Giri, the petitioner in C.R.R. No. 2032 of 2007 are identical. It is the allegation against them that they were caught red handed by the police in presence of the independent witnesses from a Hotel, viz. Coastal Midway Hotel, situated at Sridharpur, Nandakumar, while they were carrying on prostitution. It appears from the judgement passed in connection with the aforesaid Criminal Revision, C.R.R. No. 2032 of 2007 this Court found that no prima facie case against the petitioner in the said criminal revision for commission of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has been made out as there was no allegation that he was keeping the brothel or allowing his premises to be used as brothel. Similarly, this court found that there cannot be any offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against the said accused as there was no allegation that he was living on the earnings of the prostitution and he procured or induced or took a person for the sake of prostitution. I do find there is no such allegation as against the present petitioner and he is standing on the same footings as that of the Ashoke Giri, the petitioner in C.R.R. No. 2032 of 2007.
5. Now this court posed with an question to see as to whether any case for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has been made out against the present petitioner or not. I find in the criminal revision, C.R.R. No. 2032 of 2007 the Court quashing the case for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as against the petitioner therein on the ground that no prostitution took place in near or in the vicinity of the public places. However, from a plain reading of the provisions of Section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, I find that the said offence is also attracted when any prostitution is carried on within an area notified under sub-section (3) of the said provisions as well as when any prostitution was carried at a place which is at a distance of 200 meters of any place of public religious worship, educational institutions, hostel, hospital, nursing home or such other public place of any kind as may be notified in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police or Magistrate in the manner prescribed. However, it appears from the materials available from the Case Diary that Coastal Midway Hotel, i.e. the place of occurrence where the prostitution was allegedly carried on is situated at a place within a distance of 200 meters from Maharaj Nandakumar College, Sridharpur Sishusikshan Kendra and Mohammadpur Primary Board School, as such there cannot be said that no offence punishable under Section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has been made out against the present petitioner. I have carefully gone through the Case Diary and have found that several statements of local witnesses were recorded, who alleged to that effect, that within a distance of 200 meters from the place of occurrence school and colleges were situated.
In the result while the impugned charge-sheet under Section 3/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against the petitioner is quashed, his prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet relating to the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 stands rejected.
This application stands disposed of accordingly.
Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )