Bangalore District Court
Suresha , Pi vs Punith S on 4 January, 2025
KABC030396922022
Presented on : 20-05-2022
Registered on : 20-05-2022
Decided on : 04-01-2025
Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 15 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 04th day of January, 2025
C.C. No.15151/2022
State by Yeshwanthpura Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Punith.S.
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Sri Shankarappa,
R/at Kendegala Grama,
Bettahalli Post, Gundlupete Taluk,
Chamarajanagar District.
Presently R/at Sai Orchid Lodge,
Mattikere, Yashwanthpura,
Bangalore
KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
2. Sri Arun Kumar.N.A.,
Aged about 26 years,
S/o Sri Akkalappa,
R/at S.Nagenahalli Grama,
Hadonahalli Post, Thubugere
Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Sangameshwaraiah, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 20-07-2021
offence
2. Name of Complainant Sri. K.Suresha, PI of
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
3. Offences complained Under Section 3, 4, 5
of and 6 of ITP Act
4. Plea Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused are acquitted
6. Date of order 04-01-2025
2
KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Bagalagunte Police Station incharge of Yeshwanthpura Police Station, submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 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 20-07-2021, at 3.30 p.m, the accused No.1 being the cashier and accused No.2 being the owner of Sai Orchid Lodge situated at Mattikere, Gokul I Stage, Bombay Dyeing Road, within the limits of Yeshwanthapura Police Station was using the said lodge for prostitution, CW1 namely Sri. K. Suresh along with police personnel namely CW9 to CW12 namely Sri. R. Nagaraj, Sri Prasanna, Sri Ajaykumar, Sri Sumangala and pancha witnesses CW2 and CW3 namely Sri Goutham and Sri Ganesh, raided the said lodge and arrested the accused persons and seized Rs.2000/-, 1 mobile phone and two condom packets. In order to earn money, the accused No.1 and 2 has indulged in the prostitution work.
3. First Information Report: On receipt of credible information, CW1, PI of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, raided Sai Orchid Lodge, No.21, 11 th Main Road, I Stage, Mattikere, Yeshwanthpura, 3 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 Gokul 1st Stage, Bengaluru along with CW9 to 12 and pancha witnesses CW2 and CW3 and seized cash of Rs.2000/-, 1 mobile phones and condoms under Ex.P1 mahazar and had handed over the accused No.1 and 2 to the police station along with the report as per Ex.P5.
4. Investigation: After receipt of report as per Ex.P5, CW13 Sri.M.N.Umesh, PSI of Yeshwanthpura PS, registered Crime No.204/2021 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 ITP Act, prepared FIR and sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses, collected the documents and handed over the case papers to CW14. Thereafter, CW14/PW7 Sri Sunil, S.B., PSI of Bagalagunte PS in charge of Yashwanthpura PS received the case papers from CW13 as per the direction of ACP and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
5. Accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail at pre-summoning stage by the order dated 26-07-2021.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offence alleged against the accused No.1 and 2.
4KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused persons.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.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 in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 14 witnesses however examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents, MO1 to 3 and closed their side. The examination of CW4, CW5 and CW3 were dropped out as they failed to appear despite due execution of proclamation by the order dated 12-02-2024 and 02-03-2024 respectively, the presence of CW12 could not be secured and hence given up from examination by the order dated 15-07-2024.
10. Statement of accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined as per section 313 statement of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
5KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 20-07-2021, the the accused No.1 being the cashier and accused No.2 being the owner of Sai Orchid Lodge, have engaged in the activities of prostitution at their lodge situated at Mattikere, Gokul 1st Stage, Bombay Dyeing road, within the limits of Yeshwanthapura Police Station thereby resulted in commission of the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act?
2. What order?
6KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
13. 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
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the following witnesses which are as follows i. CW2 by name Sri Goutham examined as PW1 identified his signature on Ex.P1 seizure cum spot mahazar as per Ex.P1(a) and pleaded ignorance about the contents of the Ex.P1 and the objects seized under Ex.P1. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness but no favorable answer has been elicited from him in support of Ex.P1 panchaname.
ii. CW6 Sri Gangappa, CW7 Sri Amarappa and CW8 Sri Manappa were examined as PW2 to PW4 respectively deposed that they pleaded ignorance about the prosecution case and they have not given any statements before the police. In this regard, the 7 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 learned Senior APP cross examined these witnesses by treating them as hostile witnesses but no favorable answer has been elicited from them to support the prosecution case. Their denial statements given before the police are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P4.
iii. CW11 by name Sri Ajay Kumar, the then HC of Yeshwanthpura PS examined as PW5 deposed that, on 20-07-2021 on the receipt of credible information that the accused persons were engaged in activities of prostitution at Sai Orchid Lodge, he along with CW1, CW10, CW12 and CW13 went to the spot in private vehicle and called CW2 and CW3 as pancha witnesses after issuance of notice and informed them about the case who in turn agreed to the pancha giving✔ witness. Later, CW10 sent as a decoy to that lodge by marked two notes of Rs.500/- and told him to give a missed call. After receipt of missed call from him, they raided the II floor of lodge and found one him which, wherein they found one of ✔ Punith i.e. accused No.1 and seized Rs.2000/- from marked Rs.500/-notes which was given to decoy. The accused admitted that they were engaged in prostitute activities as per direction of accused No.2. Thereafter they checked the room No.201 and 202 and found one woman with man in each room, on enquiry with them, one of woman name is Kiran and another one is Roopa. They seized one MI mobile phone, Rs.2,000/-cash and 2 condoms by drawing 8 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 seizure mahazar from 4 to 5 pm as per Ex.P1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P1(b). He identified mobile and the same is marked as MO1 and Rs.500/- in 4 notes as MO2 and two condoms as MO3. They handed over the accused persons and seized objects to the Police Station for further action and CW1 lodged complaint. He identified the accused persons present before this court.
iv. CW1 Sri K.Suresh, the then PI of Yeshwanthapura PS examined as PW6 deposed that on 20-07-2021 at 3.30 p.m. on the receipt of credible information that the accused persons were engaged in activities of prostitution at Sai Orchid Lodge, he called CW2 and CW3 as pancha witnesses and went to spot along with CW10 to CW13 in private vehicle. Later, CW10 sent as a decoy to lodge by handing over two pencil marked Rs.500/- notes. After receipt of miss call from him, they raided on 2 nd floor of lodge and found accused No.1 by name Punith at recaption two ✔ and seized Rs.2000/- from him which was contained marked Rs.500/-in two notes which was given to decoy. The accused No.1 being cashier of lodge admitted that he engaged in activities of prostitute. Thereafter they checked the room No.202 and saw one woman and a man, namely Smt.Kiran and Sri Rangappa and seized one condom from the said room. In room No.201, they saw one woman and a man namely Smt Roopa and Sri Amarappa and seized 9 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 one condom from the said room. On enquiry, the accused No.1 admitted that he engaged in the said activities as per the direction of his owner-accused No.2. Thereafter, he drawn seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1 from 4 to 5.30 pm and seized MO1 to MO3 and handed over the accused persons along with seized material objects with report. He identified his signature on Ex.P1 as Ex.P1(c). The said report is marked as Ex.P5 and his signature as Ex.P5(a), notice issued to the Pancha witnesses is marked as Ex.P6 and his signature as Ex.P6(a) and search warrant is marked as Ex.P7 and his signature as Ex.P7(a). He identified MO1 to MO3.
v. CW14 Sri S.B.Sunil examined as PW7 deposed that he was serving as a Sub-inspector of Police in the Bagalagunte Police Station. On 05-10-2021, he received the Crime No.204/2021 of Yeshwanthura Police Station as per direction of ACP and received case papers from CW13, recorded his statement and submitted charge sheet against accused.
vi. CW10 Sri H.C.Prasanna, the then HC of Yeshwanthpura PS examined as PW8 deposed that, on 20-07-2021 on receipt of credible information about prostitution carried out at Orchid Lodge , Bombay Dying Road, Gokul, Mathikere, CW1, he along with CW11 to CW13 and pancha witnesses and 10 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 obtained search warrant from the superiors, went to the said place in private vehicle, gave him two note of Rs.500/- denomination and told him to confirm the about illegal prostitution to them by sending a missed call on their mobile. When he went inside the lodge, the accused No.1 was the cashier. He gave the two notes to accused which were given by CW1. Then, accused told me that there were women in room No. 201 and 202 on the 4th floor, then he went to room No.201 and 202 and after confirming the information, he gave a missed call to CW1's mobile phone. Then, CW1 raided the lodge and apprehend accused No.1 and 2 and protected CW4 and 5. He conducted mahazar from 4.00 to 5.30 pm and seized Rs.2000/-, a mobile phone and two condoms from the accused No.1. He identified his signature on Ex.P1 as Ex.P1(d) and MO1 to MO3.
15. The offences under section 3, 4, 5 and 6 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 11 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 cognizable offence within the 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 12 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 authorised by the special police 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, CW1/PW6 has conducted the search and seized the MO1 to MO3 and arrested accused No.1 and 2 without registration of FIR. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C which reads as under 13
KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 "154. Information in cognizable cases.
--(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf: [Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A,section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police 14 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that-- (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B,section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 1[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as 15 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 soon as possible.] (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
157. Procedure for investigation.--(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which 16 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that-- (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. [Provided further 17 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.] (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that subsection, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated."
Thus, it is clear from above provisions that there are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be registered by the informant which was duly signed by him. Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police officer himself on any information received by him. In 18 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 both the cases, the information should be reduced into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be carried out. It appears from the record, i.e. Ex.P1 spot cum seizure mahazar, on 20-07-2021 seizure was taken place at 4.00 p.m. to 05.30 P.M., but it appears from Ex.P2 i.e. complaint lodged by CW1/PW6 on 20- 07-2021 at 18.00 i.e., 6.00 p.m i.e., after seizure mahazar before SHO to register the complaint which is unsustainable in law and the said principle is appreciated in the case of SRI DAYANANDA @ R. BABU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN LAWS(KAR) 2024 - 4- 16.
16. PW6 has sought permission from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Yeshwanthpura Sub- Division, Bangalore City on 20/07/2021 that he received from information from informer and to conduct a search at 3.30 pm at Sai Orchid Lodge situated at Mattikere, Gokul I Stage, Bombay Dyeing Road, within the limits of Yeshwanthapura Police Station however no information about the timings was divulged in the permission letter dated 20/07/2021 as per Ex.P7 however it appears from the record that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has accorded permission on 20/07/2021 and the timings of permission was not disclosed in the letter dated 20/07/2021. It appears from the Ex. P1 i.e., search seizure wherein seizure panchaname was 19 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 carried out from 4 p.m., to 5 p.m., on 20/07/2021 in the presence of CW2 namely Sri Goutham Aged about 29 years S/o Krishnamurthy, R/o No.1262/6, 8th Main, 5th Cross, K.N. Layout, Subedarapalya, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore - 22 and CW3 namely Sri Ganesh, Aged about 28 years, S/o Late th Muniswamappa, residing at No.306, 6 Cross, II Main, B. K. Nagar, Yashwanthpura, Bangalore - 560
022. In this regard, it is relevant to quote 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.20
KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 (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 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 21 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 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-
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. The Ex.P1 is very clear 22 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 that no independent woman were made as a witness to the Ex.P1 (seizure panchaname) and the Ex.P7 (letter addressed by the PW6 to the ACP, Yeshwanthpura Police Station makes it very clear that the East by Bombay Dying Road, West by Euro Kids School, North by No.20 Ramachandra building and South by Bharath Furniture's. The witnesses accompanied the police at the raid were two men and there was no woman present. In which event, search would be illegal and cannot be relied upon in support of prosecution case and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Shivaraj Vs State of Karnataka through Devadurga Police Station in Crl. Petition No. 200782/2016 dated 12/07/2017.
17. CW1/PW6 did not make any attempt to secure neighbor as a witnesses in this case which creates doubt on the prosecution case.
18. It is one of main defence of accused No.1 and 2 that as per circular issued by the Commissioner of Police from the year 2009, the CCTV should be installed in lodges, malls, pubs and cinema theaters however CW14/PW7 had deposed in the cross examination as under
ನಾನು ಚಾಸಾ 13 ರವರಿಂದ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಘಟನಾ 23 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಠಾಣೆಯಿಂದ ಕೃತ್ಯ ನಡೆದ ಸ್ಥಳ 13 ಕಿ.ಮೀ ದೂರದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. 2019ನೇ ಇಸವಿಯ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಕಮಿಷನರ್ ಆದೇಶದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಮಾಲ್, ಲಾಡ್ಜ್ , ಪಬ್, ಸಿನಿಮಾ ಥಿಯೇಟರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಲಾಡ್ಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಘಟನೆಯ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿರುವಾಗ ಅಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯರನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
however CW10/PW8 decoy deposed as under
ಬಾಂಬೆ ಡೈಯಿಂಗ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜನಸಂದಣಿ ಇರುವ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಸಾಯಿ ಆರ್ಚಿಡ್ ಲಾಡ್ಜ್ ಇರುವ ಸ್ಥಳ ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯ ಸ್ಥಳ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2019ನೇ ಇಸವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಮೀಷನರ್ ರವರ ಆದೇಶದ ಪ್ರಕಾರಣ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾಗಳನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ಎಲ್ಲ ಲಾಡ್ಜ್ ಮತ್ತು ಪಬ್ ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂಡ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
Thus, it is clear from the evidence of PW8 that the best evidence was much very available, however the CW14/PW7/IO did not make any attempt to secure best evidence that the CW4 Smt. Kiran and CW5 Smt. Roopa Y was used for prostitution.24
KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
19. Neither photographs of seizure mahazar was taken nor videographed the alleged procedure of seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1 to connect the alleged incident.
20. No doubt, it appears from the record that the Sai Orchid is in the name of accused No.2 as the license stands in the name of accused No.2 but the CW1/PW6 did not comply with mandatory provision of Section 15 of ITP Act whilst searching the Sai Orchid lodge.
21. Added to which, the PW1 being one of independent spot cum seizure mahazar witness did not support the prosecution case
22. The other independent witnesses namely CW6/PW2, CW7/PW3, CW8/PW4 did not support the prosecution case.
23. The evidence on record does not prove that the accused were carrying on brothel business on the date of alleged raid by the PW6 and his staff. Hence, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused 25 KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence charged against them thereby the accused No. 1 are entitled for the benefit of such doubt. Accordingly, this court answers points No.1 in the Negative.
24. Point No.2: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused No.1 and 2 deserve to be acquitted of the offences charged against them 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.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
(ii) Accused are are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.26
KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
(iv) 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 04th day of January, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Goutham PW2 : Sri Gangappa PW3 : Sri Amarappa PW4 : Sri Manappa PW5 : Sri Ajay Kumar PW6 : Sri K.Suresh PW7 : Sri Sunil.S.B. PW8 : Sri Prasanna.H.C.
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P2 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW3
27
KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022
Ex.P4 : Statement of PW4
Ex.P5 : Complaint
Ex.P6 : Police Notice
Ex.P7 : Requisition
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Mobile MO2 : Cash of Rs.2000/- MO3 : Two condoms
Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
28KABC030396922022 CC No.15151/2022 04-1-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
(ii) Accused are are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
29