CHERIVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the four accused in C. C. No. 34 of 1972 on the file of the District Magistrate's Court. Ernakulam charged for an offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. has filed this revision against the order framing charge against him.

(2.) THE Petitioner and the other accused are Government servants. The accusation against him is that on 14. 12. 1970 he along with the three other accused took one Santhamma from Thodupuzha to the Woodlands Hotel at Wellingdon Island for the purpose of prostitution1. It is said that room Nos. 42 and 46 in the hotel were reserved in the name of one of the accused by name Madhavan Nair. On a perusal of the Papers under Section 173, Cr. P. C. the learned District Magistrate found a prima facie case and framed charge.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the only material available in this case to frame charge is the statement of the woman Santhamma. According to him her statement by itself will not be sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offence. I am extracting below the important around mentioned in the petition: To bring out an offence under Section 5 (1) the accused should procure the girl for not his use but for the use of others. This is also absent in the charge. There is no evidence to bring out the elements of prostitution which is also a necessary ingredient of the section.