MOTUMARRI RAMAKRISHNA Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is a Managing Partner of a lodge situated at Kodad Road, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. The 2nd respondent -Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet Circle along with mediators raided the said lodge on 03 -05 -2010 at 13.00 Hours and registered Cr.No.50 of 2010 for an offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ( for short ''the Act '') against the petitioner and five others. Based on the information furnished by the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent issued a notice dated 02 -06 -2010 under Section 18(1) of the Act calling for explanation of the petitioner as to why the lodge should not be attached on the ground that it was used as a brothel house. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 08 -06 -2010. It is stated that the 1st respondent without considering the explanation, passed the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A1/2133/2010, dated 29 -06 -2010.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter -affidavit stating that on information regarding the maintenance of lodge as a brother house, he raided on 03 -05 -2010 along with staff and mediators and caught hold of the room boy and on his confession raided Room No.111 and found two male and one female and recorded their confessional statements before the mediators. Three persons were arrested and in their statements they stated that the petitioner being the owner of the lodge knew about the brothel house is being run in the said lodge. Cr.No.50 of 2010 was booked under Sections 3 to 5 of the Act against the petitioner and five others. On 07 -05 -2010 he filed a petition before the 1st respondent to seize the said lodge and on 02 -06 -2010 the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner asking to submit his explanation as to why the said lodge should not be attached. The petitioner received the said notice and submitted his explanation on 08 -06 -2010. After considering the explanation the impugned orders were passed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner states that under Section 18(1) of the Act, the 1st Respondent has power to pass the order of eviction of the occupier, within seven days of the passing of the order, from the premises. If the owner wants to let out during the period of one year, the owner has to obtain previous approval of the Magistrate. But the impugned order was passed directing closure of 2nd and 3rd floors with immediate effect and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It was further stated that there was no allegation what -so -ever either in the First Information Report or in the mediators ' report to show that the owners are running the brothel house and they are aware of the same.