STATE Vs. BASHIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the following cases under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women & Girls Act, 1956 (herein the Act):

(2.) On receiving secret information that some women were standing near the stairs in the verandah of Kotha in the area of G.B. Road, Delhi, and were stopping passers-by and inviting them for sexual intercourse and some one was running a brothel, a 'vice-squad' was despatched by the police to organise a trap. In the police party there were two constables in plain clothes. One of them was told to pass by the said verandah and if any woman approached to talk to him and solicit customer for sexual intercourse, he would talk to her and as and when the transaction was complete, he was to give signal by putting his hand on his head. The second constable was instructed to stay a little away from the first one so as to hear the conversation between the first constable and the woman. The accused is said to have stopped the first constable and asked him "Babu Ji Shouk Farmana Hai". The first constable asked as to what type of 'shouk'. She explained that she would charge some specified sum for the whole night and he would get good enjoyment by sexual intercourse. The first constable told her that he was a married man. But she persisted. This conversation was over heard by the second constable. The police party then apprehended her and after investigation, the case was challaned. The charge against the women was under Section 8 of the Act for seducing or soliciting for purpose of prostitution any person in any public place or within sight of, and in such manner as to be seen or heard from, any public place. This is the pattern of all the cases except the case in Cr. R. 299/82 to which a reference shall be made towards the end.

(3.) The learned Magistrate held that the alleged solicitation amounted to a confession and cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, he stopped the proceedings under Section 258 Gr. P.C. In some of them, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in revision took the view that such a statement did not amount to confession. Hence, these, petitions by the State, except Gr. M. (M) 70/83 which is by the accused. Since the questions to be answered are common to all of them, hence, this single order.