KAUSHILYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the aforementioned cases arise out of the same judgment dated 25.02.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.137/1998, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts leading to disposal of all the three aforementioned appeals, in brief, are that on 13.03.1997 Maya Sharma (PW-4) the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station received a secret information regarding involvement of the accused Shanti Bai in running prostitution and eking out her livelihood with the same. Thereupon she constituted a raid party by summoning up two witnesses, PW-1 and PW-5 and after giving them two currency notes of 100 denomination and the other one of 50 denomination to be given to her, vide Panchnama Ex.P-2 duly signed by her and the said two witnesses. After the raid was effected, the accused/ appellants herein were found to be involved in the prostitution. The said currency notes given to PW-5 were seized under Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8 and the permission to get all the three accused/appellants for their medical examination was obtained from the SDO vide Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14 and Ex.P-15. FIR (Ex.P-12) was taken down against the accused/appellants under Section 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity "the Act of 1956" ) and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against them under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof. Learned Court below however framed the charge against accused Kaushaliya and Rampyari under Section 7 but against accused Shanti Bai it was under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1956.

(3.) Learned Court below vide judgment impugned convicted accused Rampyari and Kaushaliya under Section 7 and accused Shanti Bai under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1956 by imposing sentence of RI for 2 months to accused Rampyari and Kaushaliya whereas that of RI for one year, one year, 3 years and 7 years for each offence respectively in respect of Shanti Bai, all to run concurrently. Hence this appeal.