Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Section 4 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
A.X.Gilbert vs State Of Kerala on 8 June, 2015
7. The petitioner has raised a plea that merely
because a place was used only once for sexual
exploitation, such a place cannot be a brothel.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court
in Mr. X v. State of Kerala (supra).
Section 5 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Krishnamurthy @ Tailor Krishnan vs Public Prosecutor, Madras on 26 September, 1966
The Apex Court
in Krishnamurthy v. Public Prosecutor [1967 KHC 534
: AIR 1967 SC 567] observed as follows:
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.
1