T JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the 1st accused in C. C. 82/70 on the file of the Court of the District Magistrate (Judicial), Calicut. He has been charge-sheeted by the assistant Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode under Section 5 (1) (d) and Section 7 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956) which will hereafter be referred to as the Act The case against the revision petitioner and the 2nd accused, a woman, is that they were found carrying on prostitution in Boom No. 10 of the Beach Hotel, Calicut at about 2. 30 a. M. on the night of 19-3-1970 when the Assistant Superintendent of Police made a surprise raid in the room accompanied by his constables and two witnesses cited as C. Ws. 1 and 2. They were alleged to be caught red-handed in the act of prostitution. When they went to the front side of the room, it was found locked from inside. So, they went on the backside of the room, which was found open and entered into the room through the door, when they found the accused 1 and 2 lying in bed without clothes and carrying on prostitution. They got dressed up and light was put on in the room. The 2nd accused told the Assistant Superintendent of Police that she received Rs. 25/- towards hire charges for the night from the 1st accused. The Superintendent thereupon took into custody as many as 100 articles from out of the room belonging to the 1st accused. They consisted mostly of his personal belongings. A mahazar was prepared at the spot and the accused 1 and 2 were arrested. On the same day, he registered a crime and later a charge was laid against the accused before the District Magistrate.

(2.) WHEN the case came up for hearing before the lower Court under Section 251a (1), Criminal P. C. the learned District Magistrate took into consideration the documents referred to in Section 173, Criminal P. C. and upon consideration of the documents and other circumstances came to the conclusion under Section 251a (3) that the charge had to be framed against accused 1 and 2. It is against that order that the present revision is filed by the 1st accused.

(3.) THE learned counsel of the revision petitioner read through the entire statement recorded by the Assistant Superintendent of Police from four witnesses cited on the side of the prosecution. Those are the statements recorded under decision 162, Criminal P. C. during the investigation. The case of the prosecution is to be appreciated on the basis of the statements so recorded. The prosecution is not expected to go beyond that statement. Basing the entire case on the line of the statement recorded, we have to consider whether the prosecution is able to make out a charge against the revision petitioner under Section 5 (1) (d) and Section 7 (1) of the Act referred to above.