Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.98 seconds)
Remani vs State Of Kerala on 15 March, 2021 cites

State Of Kerala vs Pathumma And Anr. on 18 December, 1967

3. Sri. D. Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted with much vehemence that the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Act 104 of 1956 will not be attracted as against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, as sweeper of the lodge Crl.MC 884/2020 4 and was being paid Rs.50/- per day as wages, and had no reason to allot room to accused Nos.2 and 3, for which, there was a receptionist and room boys. He would urge that the prosecution had not placed any materials before Court to even prima facie conclude that accused Nos.2 and 3 had even indulged in sexual intercourse. The receptionist who had allotted the room to accused 2 and 3 and the room boys are not even made accused. The lodge which is being operated after obtaining all licenses and permissions from the authorities concerned, could not have been categorised as a brothel as defined in S.2(a) of the Act, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. By placing reliance on State of Kerala v. Pathumma [1968 KHC 56], Radhakrishnan K. v. State of Kerala [2008 (2) KHC 460] and Mr. X, Central Kerala v. State of Kerala, [2009 (2) KHC 5], it was contended that none of the offences attributed to the petitioners would stand legal Crl.MC 884/2020 5 scrutiny. The petitioner has not gained anything by permitting the alleged act facilitating A2 and A3.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1