STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, West Berar Division, Akola, recommending that a charge under section 3 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 (No. 104 of 1956), framed against the four opponents Gaya, Saru, Subhadra and Bani by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akola, in Criminal Case No. 82 of 1958 should be quashed. The prosecution case was that on the outskirts of Akola town near the temple of Kala Maroti there is a house of prostitution being run by one Janabai, accused No. 1, who is the mistress of one Brahmanand. On 20-8-1958 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, City Division, Akola, decided to send a customer into this house. He was Sheikh Kasam. He was given five currency notes of Re. 1/- each in the presence of panchas and ordered to go to the brothel and have sexual intercourse with one of the girls in that brothel on payment. It was the prosecution case that accordingly Sheikh Kasam went to the brothel, talked to Janabai, accused No. 1, and asked for girl or woman for sexual intercourse. Accused No. 1 showed him four girls, the opponents before this Court, and Sheikh Kasam selected the opponents before this Court, and Sheikh Kasam selected the opponent Saru wife of Vikram. He agreed to pay R. 3/- which accused No.1 accepted. She then allowed Sheikh Kasam to have sexual intercourse with Saru in one of the rooms in the brothel. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the panchas were hiding themselves in the darkness round about the brothel waiting for Sheikh Kasam to come out. It was the prosecution case that Sheikh Kasam, after having sexual intercourse, came out of the brothel and lighted a cigarette which was a prearranged signal that he had done his job. Thereupon the police officers and the panchas raided the brothel and the house of the first accused. Three currency notes of Re. 1/- each were seized from the possession of the first accused and they were attached under a seizure memo.

(2.) It was upon these facts that the four opponents along with Janabai were put up for trial before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who framed charges under Section 3 of the Act against all of them.

(3.) I am not concerned here with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act but only with sub-section (1) thereof which runs as follows: