Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

During hearing, Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner/accused No.3, who is described as customer of brothel, is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and at the same time, he is also not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 370, 370 (A) (2) of I.P.C. for the reason that Section 370 of I.P.C. deals with Trafficking of person, Section 370 A of I.P.C. deals with exploitation of a trafficked person. Therefore, ingredients of any of these two penal provisions are not satisfied, consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and under Sections 370, 370 (A) (2) of I.P.C.

In an unreported judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in "Jeevan v. State of Karnataka (criminal petition No.3026 of 2017)", it was held as follows:

" Under the similar facts and circumstances pertaining to some other case in C.C.No.28501/2015 this Court had occasion to deal with the said aspects where offences under Sections 188, 370(3), 370(A), 294 r/w 109 of IPC are invoked so far as the customers are concerned. This Court in the said case in Criminal Petition No.7935/2016 dated 28.11.2016 has categorically in detail discussed the above said provisions and held that those provisions are not attracted so far as the customers are concerned. In this case also similar facts and legal aspects are involved. There is no reason to deviate from the above said observation made by this Court. Apart from that, Section 188 of IPC cannot be invoked against the petitioners by the police, as there is a specific bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Section 370(3) of IPCdefines, whoever for the purpose of exploitation recruits, transports, harbours, transfers or receives a person or persons for the purpose of trafficking, such person is punishable under Section 370 of IPC and if the involvement of more than one victim, then sub-section (3) of Section 370 of IPC is attracted. No where it is stated that the petitioners have indulged in exploitation, recruiting, transporting, harbouring, transferring or MSM,J Crl.P_5803_2018 receiving any person. In this regard, Section 370(A) of IPC is also referable to exploitation of trafficking any person. There is no allegation whatsoever that these petitioners have exploited for wrongful gain."

Even on reanalysis of the provisions, I find no other interpretation to sub-section (2) to Section 370 A of I.P.C. to refer the matter to any larger bench for authoritative pronouncement.

Yet another offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C. Section 370 of I.P.C. deals with trafficking of person., which reads thus:

Section 370 - Trafficking of person: (1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, ( c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by--

In an unreported judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in "Chandru.S v. The State by Malleshwaram P.S., Bengaluru (Criminal Petition No.5059 of 2017), it was held that the customer is not liable to the prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C. and similar view was also expressed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in "Vinod v. State of Gujarat" (referred supra).

Thus, persuaded by the law declared by different High Courts including this Court the customer is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 to 5 of the Act and under Section 370 of I.P.C., but he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 370 A (2) of I.P.C.