CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the accused. The charges against the accused were as follows: Firstly That you A-i and A-2 on or about the 26th day of June i979 at about 5 p.m., at No. 28, Karpagammal Nagar, Kottivakkam, Madras-41, who had leased the above premises for rent were found running the said premises as a brothel by engaging Anitha alias Sumathi to have sexual intercourse with one T. Khan on payment of Rs. 1,000 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3(1) of the S.I.T. Act and within my cognizance. Secondly: That you A-3 and A-4 at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction were found acting as touts and pimps for prostitutes on behalf of Chandrasekaran and Indirakumari and there; by committed an offence punishable under section 4(2)(c) of the S.I.T. Act. Thirdly: That you A-3 at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction, were found engaged in prostitution with one T. Khan in the said premises which is within a distance of 200 yards from the Koteeswaralingam temple and Besant Nursery School at Kottivakkam and thereby committed an offence, punishable under section 7(1) of the S.I.T. Act.

(2.) The Trial Court, namely the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, upon perusing the evidence of the prosecution consisting of the, depositions of six witnesses, nine exhibits and five material objects and after hearing both the parties, found that Al and A2 were guilty under section 4(1) of the Act and the rest were found guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly convicted them and sentenced Al to A4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and sentenced A5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The appeal preferred before the Sessions Judge of the Chengalpattu was dismissed by judgment, dated 26th October 1983. As against that judgment, the present revision is filed. Though the revision was filed originally by all the accused, it is now reported that Al and A2 are dead and that the revision is therefore, pressed only in respect of the remaining accused.

(3.) As far as A3 and A4 are concerned, it is contended on behalf of the revision petitioners that the evidence discloses only that those two persons were present in the premises and there is not an iota of evidence that they have been acting as a tout or a pimp on behalf of the prostitute so as to incriminate them under section 4 of the Act.