no doubt the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is a piece of legislation aimed at preventing trafficking of women. However, the point is whether the said noble aim can be achieved by merely making organisers of brothel house and pimps as offenders while leaving the customers of flesh trade scot free. As the saying goes no single hand can produce claps, vicious circle of immoral trafficking will not be completed without active participation of the flesh customers. In my considered view, it is unwise to say that a customer who lurks in day and night in search of hidden avenues to quench his sexual lust is a hapless victim of a crime to place him out of the reach of the tentacles of the law which is intended to eradicate the pernicious practice of immoral trafficking of women. Such an unwarranted sympathy on a criminal will not help achieve desired results though aimed at high. After all, the Court can only describe the law as it is but cannot dictate

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

Crl.P.No.16593 of 2014

21-01-2015

Mohammed Shaheed .petitioner  

State of Telangana rep. by PP. Respondent

Counsel for Appellant   : Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu

Counsel for Respondent  : Public Prosecutor

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 264
2. 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 393

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO          
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16593 of 2014  
ORDER:
     The petitioner/Accused No.5 along with A.1 to A.4 and A.6 is accused
of committing offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the Act).  On the evening of 05.08.2014,
the Police of Banjara Hills P.S raided the residential Flat No.104 in Jubilee
Hills and found the said premises being used for prostitution. A.2 and A.4
were said to be the brothel house organizers, A.1 and A.3 were pimps whereas
A.5 and A.6 were the customers. The police registered crime and investigating
the matter.
2)      Now the petitioner/A.5 filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.864 of 2014 of Banjara
Hills P.S, Hyderabad.
3)      Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that none of the Sections 3,
4 and 5 or other sections of the Act describe a customer as offender and
therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner/ A.5 is abuse of process of law and
hence the proceedings against him may be quashed.
4)      Learned Public Prosecutor contended A5 is a co-accused and liable for
prosecution.
5)      I find force in the submission of petitioner. Section 3 of the Act deals
with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a
brothel. Section 4 of the Act deals with punishment for living on the earnings
of the prostitution. Whereas Section 5 of the Act deals with procuring,
inducing or taking persons for the sake of prostitution. Obviously, the
allegation against the petitioner/A.5 is not that of either running brothel
house
or procuring women for the purpose of prostitution or that he is living by
earning money on prostitution. He was booked along with other accused only
as a customer of the flesh trade. Therefore Sections 3 to 5 are not applicable
to
him. It is interesting to note that none of the other penal provisions in the
Act
either describe him as an offender. Therefore, there is any amount of force in
the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that a customer to the flesh
trade cannot be treated as an offender under the Act. This aspect is no more
res integra and we are fortified by atleast two judgments of this High Court
viz., Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. The State of A.P.  and Z. Lourdiah Naidu  vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh . In these two cases, the petitioners were admittedly
the customers to a brothel house.  Consequently, the proceedings against them
were quashed holding that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked for
prosecuting them.
6)      Having regard to the facts and above precedential jurisprudence on the
subject in issue, it is clear that the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner
would amount to abuse of process of law.
7)      Before parting, I will be failing in my duty if I do not vent out my view
on the present enactment. Law or literature cannot have more a noble aim than
depicting evil of the society and suggesting the eradicative measures. That is
why the noble Telugu play-wright Gurajada Appa Rao penned
Kanya Sulkam exposing the obnoxious practice of parents marrying their
infant daughters to septuagenarians and octogenarians for money. Another
Telugu poet Sri Sri who advocated for the cause of oppressed and
downtrodden clamoured in his ballad Kavitha o Kavitha for various sections
of destitutes in society. One among them are prostitutes. Their plight and
agony in his own words is thus:
????? ???????? ????
??????????  ?????? ?????  
??????????? ???????  
????? ???? ???? ??????
(half opened eyes of her
screams of the dreaded pain
for pet-storming brutal coitus !)
Viewing in the above context, no doubt the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956 is a piece of legislation aimed at preventing trafficking of women.
However, the point is whether the said noble aim can be achieved by merely
making organisers of brothel house and pimps as offenders while leaving the
customers of flesh trade scot free. As the saying goes no single hand can
produce claps, vicious circle of immoral trafficking will not be completed
without active participation of the flesh customers. In my considered view, it
is unwise to say that a customer who lurks in day and night in search of hidden
avenues to quench his sexual lust is a hapless victim of a crime to place him
out of the reach of the tentacles of the law which is intended to eradicate the
pernicious practice of immoral trafficking of women. Such an unwarranted
sympathy on a criminal will not help achieve desired results though aimed at
high.  After all, the Court can only describe the law as it is but cannot
dictate
what it ought to be. Yet, through this judgment I appeal to the Legislature to
ponder over the possibility of bringing the flesh customers within the fold of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
9)      In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings
against petitioner/A.5 in Crime No.864 of 2014 of Banjara Hills P.S,
Hyderabad.
     As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
        The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment
to the Union Law Minister for perusal.

_______________________  
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J    
Date: 21.01.2015

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515