Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Goenka Sajan Kumar vs The State Of A.P., Rep.By Public ... on 9 June, 2014
Author: K.G. Shankar
Bench: K.G. Shankar
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Crl. Petition No.4161 of 2014
09-06-2014
Goenka Sajan Kumar... Petitioner/A.2
The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad...
Respondent/ Complainant
Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy
Counsel for Respondent :Public Prosecutor
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases referred:
1. 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 393 (AP)
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Crl. Petition No.4161 of 2014
Date: 09.06.2014
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Crl. Petition No.4161 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner allegedly committed offences under the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act, for short).
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the prosecution, the petitioner is one of the customers of a brothel house and not a person running the brothel house or acting as a pip for the personnel in the brothel house. He submitted that under the provisions of the Act, a customer to the brothel house is not punishable.
3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1230 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012. This Court held that Section 4 is meant to punish the people living on the earnings of prostitution and that a person who is visiting the brothel house would not be covered by the Act. Similar view was taken by this Court in Z. Lourdiah Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case can prima facie be made out against the petitioner and that the petition against him, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
4. Section 3 of the Act imposes punishment for maintaining a brothel house or allowing premises to be used as a brothel house. Section 4 imposes penalty for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 deals with the procurement, inducement or indicing for a person for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the Act speaks about detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out.
5. None of these sections speak about punishment to the customer of a brothel house. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, as the petitioner was not running a brothel house nor did he allow his premises to be used as a brothel house. The petitioner is not alleged to be living on the earnings of prostitution. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was procuring, inducing or in dicing any person for the sake of prostitution nor is it the case of the prosecution that any person was earning on the premises where prostitution is carried out.
6. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable for punishment under the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner is unjust and the case against him is liable to be quashed.
7. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.547 of 2014 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur at Kukatpally against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Act is hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ____________________________ Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date: 09.06.2014