SAYED ABDUL KHAIR Vs. BABUBHAI JAMALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point to be decided in this Criminal Revision Application, filed by accused No. 3, Sayed Abdul Khair, who is prosecuted along with others under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for running a brothel, under Sections 3 (1) and 4 (1) and for procuring the girls at serial Nos. 4 to 17 in the charge-sheet for the purpose of prostitution, under Section 5 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, is as to whether the learned Presidency Magistrate was right in rejecting an application for making a reference to this Court on the point raised on behalf of the accused that Sections 15 (4) and 16 (1) are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as they make a discrimination between a girl and woman.

(2.) BY raising such a frivolous point, this case is kept pending from December 7, 1971, when the charge-sheet was filed, till now. The point sounds fantastic in the mouth of a person charged with running a brothel and procuring the girls for prostitution. I do not think that either in Article 14 or in any other part of the Constitution there is anything which has given any such right to a brothel-keeper or to one who Drocures girls to contend that a woman and girl must be treated in the same fashion for all purposes by the Legislature. The Constitution is made for good Government and good life. It is certainly not intended to help people who want to live by or to promote the ancient vices of prostitution without making any distinction between a woman and girl. A kitchen is not made for cockroaches. The Constitution is not made for helping brothel-keepers and procurers, who do not want the Legislature to make an enactment providing for different treatment for women and girls below 21 being exploited for purposes of prostitution. On this around alone, the application of the petitioner ought to be thrown out as a frivolous application which has delayed the proceedings, pending from 1971.

(3.) HOWEVER, Mr. Merchant, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, solemnly contended that it is open to the accused to submit that Section 15 (4), in so far as it empowers a Special Police Officer entering any premises to remove therefrom any girl, if in his opinion, she is under the age. of 21 years and is carrying on or is being made to carry on, or attempts are being made to make her carry any prostitution, is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminating between a girl and a woman, because the woman is not liable to be removed. Similarly, he contended that Section 16 (1) which empowers a Magistrate to direct the special police to enter a brothel and to remove therefrom a girl also makes an unreasonable distinction between a girl and woman.