STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. IRIS CHANDRABALA PREMNATH
LAWS(BOM)-1954-8-6
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on August 24,1954

STATE Appellant
VERSUS
IRIS CHANDRABALA PREMNATH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MORGAN V. MORGAN & PORTER [REFERRED TO]
MAHOMED ROSHAN V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
HANIFABAI V. MD. YAKUB [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: CHHAGAN HARGOVAN [REFERRED TO]
D'SOUZA V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
P.D. SHAMDASANI V. H.P. MODY [REFERRED TO]
NARAN VELJI VS. RANJITSINGH JAMNADAS KAPADIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SADASHIV DEVJI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1955-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL TULSIRAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1955-10-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dixit, J. - (1.)This revisional application has been referred to a division bench by Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar in consequence, we are informed, of Mr. Justice Shah's decision which has been reported in --'Naran Velji v. Ranjitsingh', The question raised is one under Section 362(4), Criminal P. C. It is one of frequent occurrence and, therefore, is of some importance.
(2.)The facts of the case in which the question arises are simple. The applicant was "prosecuted before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bombay, for an offence of soliciting persons in a street for the purpose of prostitution under Section 3(b), Bombay Prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923. Section 3, so far as material, provides :
"Whoever in an street or public place or place of public resort or within sight of and in such manner as to be seen or heard from any street or public place, whether from within any house or building or not--...... (b) solicits or molests any person or loiters for the purpose of prostitution, or carnal intercourse or any act of gross indecency, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both."
In support of the prosecution case three witnesses, viz., head constable No. 1006/K, Police constable No. 7690/K and one Rambhau Genoji who is said to be a fruit merchant at Crawford Market, were examined on 19-5-1954. On 27-5-1954, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 342, Criminal P. C. Then on 31-5-1954, five witnesses, via., Bhimaji Janapur, Superintendent Of Police. "A" Division, Sorab Hormasji Kanga, Inspector of Police, Vigilance Branch C.I.D., Sorab Bheramsha Hormusji, Sunderdas Kashiram arid John Frederick Errington were examined and thereafter the case stood adjourned for judgment on 2-6-1954.
(3.)The learned Magistrate considered that the case for the prosecution was proved by the evidence of two police witnesses supported as it was by the evidence of Rambhau. He disbelieved the defence case which was that on the day in question at about 2-30 p.m. the accused was going to buy her rations and while she was passing between the Leopold Hotel and Imperial Stores, two men suddenly came from the opposite direction, lifted her and put her into a taxi. The learned Magistrate considered that the story of the accused was a cock and bull story, similarly, he disbelieved the defence evidence and pointed out that, at any rate, the evidence of Sorab Hormusji Kanga would go to support the prosecution case. In the result, he convicted the applicant of the offence charged against her and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for one day and to pay ft fine of Rs. 100 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. From the order of conviction and sentence the accused has come up in revision.


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