PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. UTTARAVALLI NAGESWARARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein one U. Nageswararao was charge-sheeted under Sec. 3 (1) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) by the Special Police Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bandar, before the Munsif Magistrate, Gudivada in Calendar Case No. 21 of 1963. The allegations against the respondent were that he was running a brothel in house bearing Door No. 12/327; that when on 19-11-1962 at about 11-45 in the night the Special Police Officer along with the mediators made a surprise raid on the said house, he found two customers in the house in the company of prostitutes. It was stated that the respondent was also present in the house. He opened the door and the party on entering the house found two rooms in the eastern side of the house bolted from inside. When the doors were opened, P. Ws. were found inside while in the other room P. Ws. 6 and 7 were found in the dishevelled state. On enquiry it was revealed by P. Ws. 1 and 6 that they had come to the girls, P.Ws. 2 and 7, and that they had paid one rupee for that purpose. Thereupon, a mahazar was drafted. The money was seized from the custody of the respondent and charge-sheet, as stated above, was laid against the accused under Sec. 3 (i) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that he was running a Killy shop and was not a resident of the said shop. It was stated on his behalf that P. Ws. 1 and 6 had some altercation with him and in consequence thereof the case was foisted against him. The learned Magistrate on examining 8 witnesses on behalf of prosecution and two on the side of defence came to the conclusion that no case beyond reasonable doubt has been made out by the prosecution; and in that view, he acquitted the respondent of the charge under Security. 3. (i) of the Act. The State has now come in appeal against the said order.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the order of the Magistrate is unsustainable as it is merely based on the ground that the officer conducting search had only strictly complied with the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Act. Referring to the decision in the case of Radha Krishan v. State of U. P., AIR 1963 SC 822, he has urged that though the provisions of search as contemplated under S. 13 of the Act have not been complied with only two consequences could follow therefrom (1) that the accused could resist the search being illegal and (ii) the Court would examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure. It is therefore contended that the evidence on record could not be brushed aside, and it was sufficient to warrant conviction of the respondent under Sec. 3 (i) of the Act.