Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) The applicant was convicted under S. 3(1) and S. 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagath, was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in appeal. Hence this revision application.

(2) The prosecution case was that the Assistant Superintendent of Police sent a bogus punter Lalji by name to the house of the applicant with a five rupee currency note; that Lalji gave this currency note to the applicant who thereupon asked Lalji to select a girl for the purpose of prostitution. Lalji selected the wife of the applicant, Jaya alias Indumati by name, and both were allowed to go into a room. The police and Panchas then made a raid and found the punter in the company of Jaya in a compromising attitude on a cot. The five rupee currency note was found in the pocket of the applicant. The applicant was prosecuted. He denied that he was guilty, but admitted that he had received Rs. 5/- from Laji, but, according to him, he was given that amount in connection with the sale of a horse. The trying Magistrate rejected the defence, accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the applicant as stated above, and the conviction was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal.

(8) As regards the argument that there is no evidence to prove that the house of the accused was a brothel, it is true that there is no direct evidence. A brothel is defined in S. 2(a) of the Act as follows:-

" `Brothel' includes any house, room, or place or any portion of any house, room or place, which is used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes".

Sub-section (2) of S. 4 of the Act provides:

"(2) Where any person is proved -
(a) to be living with, or to be habitually in the company of, a prostitute; or
(b) to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that such person is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution; or
(c) to be acting as a tout or pimp on behalf of a prostitute, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of another person within the meaning of sub-section (1):
Provided that no such presumption shall be drawn in the case of a son or daughter of a prostitute, if the son or daughter is below the age of eighteen years".

In the instant case, on the evidence it is clear that Indumati, the wife of the applicant was a prostitute, and that the applicant, her husband, was living with her. The presumption mentioned in S. 4(2) of the Act may therefore be drawn. But, it is contended that the presumption should be drawn only in the case of strangers living with or habitually in the company of a prostitute, and that such a presumption should not be drawn in the case of the husband of the prostitute, and that such a presumption should not be drawn in the case of the husband of the prostitute, who is living with her. There is no reason to restrict the scope of the presumption may be drawn, that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of a prostitute. If the husband lives with his wife, and allows his wife to be a prostitute, there is no reason for not believing that the husband was doing so for the purpose of living on the earnings of prostitution of his wife. If the husband allows his own wife to be a prostitute, the presumption would be stronger that he was doing so for the purpose of living on her earnings of prostitution. There is, therefore, no reason not to apply the presumption mentioned in S. 4(2) of the Act to the `case of a husband living with his prostitute wife. In this case therefore, such a presumption can be drawn, and when such a presumption can be drawn, until the contrary is proved, it can be presumed that the applicant was knowingly living on the earnings of the prostitution of Indumathi his wife. When such a presumption is drawn, that would be sufficient to presumption is drawn, that would be sufficient in constitute the house of the applicant a brothel, because `brothel' includes any house, room, or place which is used for purposes of Prostitution for the gain of another person. That the house in question was a brothel is therefore proved by the evidence on record and the presumption to be drawn from S. 4(2) of the Act.