VANGA SEETHARAMAMMA Vs. CHITTA SAMBASIVA RAO AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, which is on reference before us, raises a short point as to the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.

(2.) The revision petitioner took a house on rent from the respondent in Guntur Municipal area. She is said to have taken to a life of prostitute there and to have been since running a brother in that house. This became a source of nuisance to the respondent and a menace to the healthy, moral atmosphere of the general public of the locality. On a petition filed by the respondent, the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur started proceedings under Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After due enquiry into the truth of the information received and alter giving the petitioner herein an opportunity of adducing evidence he reached the conclusion that the petitioner is a prostitute and that it was necessary in the interests of the general public that she should be directed to remove herself from the Guntur area. He accordingly passed an order directing her to remove herself from the disputed portion of the house in Door No. 9-3-1933 Vinapamulavari Street, Railpet, Guntur and from the local limits of Guntur Municipality within 7 days from the date of the order and not to re-enter the premises or come again within the Guntur Municipal limits without the written permission of the Court. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner moved in vain the Sessions Court to make a reference to the High Court. She has now come in revision to this Court. Her petition came up before our learned brother Mohammed Mirza, J. who, having regard to the conflict of views between the Allahabad and Punjab High Courts, has referred the matter to this Bench.

(3.) The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rama Mohana Rao, are twofold; firstly, that there is no evidence on which the revision petitioner can be held to be a prostitute; secondly, that even assuming that she was a prostitute, Section 20 of the Act cannot be lawfully invoked, as it is hit by Article 19(1), sub-clauses (d), (e) and (g) of the Constitution. He further contended that at any rate the order of the lower Court is bad, because it does not bear any reference to either the place where the petitioner should reside, or to duration of time for which the order shall remain in force.