IN RE: LAKSHMI KUMARI Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1970-3-30
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on March 16,1970

In Re: Lakshmi Kumari Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.N.Mudaliar, J. - (1.) ACCUSED this its Appellant. She seeks to assaibber conviction for offences under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (Act CIV of 1956).
(2.) THE facts proved by the prosecution before the court of the Sixth Presidency Magistrate and the findings given by him are elaborately set out in the judgment of the court below and it is unnecessary for me to reiterate them in great detail, in view of the question of law raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that, in view of the acquittal of Lekshml (A.2) for an offence under Section 7(1) of the Act and also in view of the lack of any other independent evidence in support of the proof of the offences under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act, the offences of which the Appellant has been found guilty are not proved in the light of the terms of Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor has conceded fairly and rightly, that the convictism of accused 1 is unsupportable in view of the acquittal of accused 2 and the evidence on record.
(3.) BY reason of the acquittal of accused 2 it is found that the Appellant did not carry on prostitution on 5th of Jane 1968 at 11 -45 p.m. In this case even a stray or isolated act of prostitution is not proved. On the facts and circumstances of this case it is difficult to maintain the conviction of the Appellant for offences under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act. Under Section 3(l) a person who keeps or manager, acts or assists in the keeping or management, of, a brother shall be punishable. Section 2(a) defines 'brothel' as including any house, room or place, which is used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gains of two or mere prostitutes . The expression occurring in Section 2(a) "for purposes of prostitution" and 'for the gain of another person' are of great significances. In view of the acquittal of accused 2, the ingredient of prostitution 'for the gain of another person' is not proved. Therefore, the proof of ingredients of a brothel is lacking in the peculiar circumstances of the case. On this ground alone, the Appellant is entitled to an acquittal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.