Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2026.01.05 16:46:18 +0530 apprehended. The names of those five foreign national girls were revealed as Markobo, Sanobar, Dilfuza Palvanova, Arvaza Zulikha and Shusevgenia. After investigating the matter, it was found that the abovementioned five girls are indulged the prostitution and some were found staying in India without a valid visa and passport. Thereafter, all these girls were arrested and FIR was registered under Section 3/4/5/7/8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'ITP Act') and section 14 Foreigners Act.

Before proceeding further with the present case on merits, it would be pertinent to state in here the relevant provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in brief) as well as law with regard to the same.

(i) The accused was keeping a brothel or allowing her premises to be used as a brothel (u/s 3 ITP Act);
(ii) Prostitution in or vicinity of public places (u/s 7 ITP Act).

12. In State v. Bashir Ahmed, 1983 SCC OnLine Del 137 while dealing with similar facts as in the present case, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:

2026.01.05 16:47:03 +0530 three ladies by making gestures also can't be said to be proved. Particularly when no such part of the body was shown or offered by them to the decoy customer.
14. In the instant case, all the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable U/s 3/7 ITP Act as well as section 14 Foreign National Act. Accused Arvaza Zulikha and accused Shusevgenia@ Jaine pleaded guilty to the charges on 16.07.2011. Accused Sanobar Atadjanova pleaded guilty to the charges on 09.12.2015. The case proceeded for trial against accused Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova. The allegations against them are that they were using premises i.e. House no.67, second floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi as a brothel and were soliciting/ inducing prostitution for monetary gains. However, the prosecution has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish the possession of the said premises with the accused persons on the date of offence. PW-1/ Rajesh Singh has entered the witness box and deposed that he is the owner of the house, which was allegedly used for prostitution. He has admitted entering into tenancy agreement with Sh. Kamal Suri, however he was kept in column 12 and not summoned by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. How the house was passed down from Kamal Suri to the accused persons has not been proven by the prosecution. Therefore, no evidence is forthcoming to explain the nature of possession of the said property with the accused persons on the day of incident i.e. 02.02.2011. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons were in possession of the said property and in its absence, there exists no ground to assume that they were using the said property for the purpose of brothel. Therefore, there is no occasion to convict them for the offence punishable u/s 3 ITP Act.
15. It was upon the prosecution to prove that the girls namely Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova alleged to be produced by accused Nirmal to the decoy customer were prostitute as per section 2(f) of ITP Act. Although it is stated in the charge sheet that accused Marhobo opened the door and offered herself and four other girls to the decoy customer, however there is no mention of any overt act done either by the decoy customer HC Amit Tomar nor shadow witness SI Sharat Kohli who was the shadow witness. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was over overt act on the part of accused Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova apart from receiving the money from decoy customer, HC Amit Tomar. As held by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Renu Bansal case (Supra) that mere acceptance of money from the decoy customer and in absence of other evidence of any other overt act leading to sexual intercourse, merely handing over the money is hardly sufficient to prove that the money was received for the purpose of prostitution, the prosecution has failed to show that the said girls namely Marhobo or Dilfuza Paranova squarely falls within the provision of section 2(f) of ITP Act.