HASINA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow in S.T.No. 61/85 on a charge u/s. 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the Act). The appellant was tried by the Sessions Court on a charge u/s. 366 I.P.C. as also u/s. 5 of the Act. The appellant was acquitted of the charge u/s. 366 I.P.C. but was convicted on: the other charge and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months. This conviction and sentence is under consideration in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence of procurement and, therefore, charge u/s. 5 of the Act was not proved. He further submitted that the Sessions Court at Mhow had no jurisdiction to try the case because the circumstances alleged showed that the offence was committed at Bombay, and not within the jurisdiction of the court at Mhow.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix Meena was living in Joshi Moholla, Mhow alongwith her parents. The appellant lived in the neighbourhood and used to frequent the house of the prosecutrix. On the day of Goganavmi the accused appellant invited Meena to go with her to the fair which is held on that day. At about 8-8.30 P.M. on that day the appellant took Meena from her house to the fair. The appellant gave a Taviz to Meena on wearing which Meena lost control over herself. The appellant then took her in a truck to Bombay. She was kept at Bombay Railway Station for 2-3 days. She was renamed Mumtaj and taken to the appellants friend Shehnaj and then to one Maqbulbai. The appellant then compelled Meena to engage in prostitution. Meena was ill treated also and her swearing not to harm or complain against the appellant, the appellant brought her back to Mhow where already a report of her missing was lodged. After Meena returned to Mhow, she lodged a report at the Police Station.

(3.) After recording evidence the trial court found that it was not proved that Meena was below 18 years of age. It did not find charge u/s. 366 I.P.C. to be proved. So far as the charge u/s. 5 of the Act, the Court found that there was enough evidence to convict the accused/appellant of an offence u/s. 5 of the Act. Meena was examined, as P.W. 7 In para 4 of her statement, she had narrated the story as to how she was taken to Bombay and was compelled to engage in prostitution, she has clearly stated that the appellant took her to a Taxi Driver Shanker. They took her to Mayur Hotel and there the appellant tom her to go and share bed with Shanker. Shanker had sexual intercourse with her in a room in that hotel and paid Rs. 500/- to the appellant in lieu of this. In para 5 also Meena had stated that she was compelled to have sexual intercourse with other persons also. There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix and the Sessions Court has rightly relied on it. Sections 5 of the Act makes procurement of an attempt to procure a person with or without the consent of such person for the purpose of prostitution, punishable. Taking or inducing the person from one place to the another with a view to carrying on prostitution or becoming an inmate of a brothel has also been made punishable under this Section. There is enough evidence on record of procurement and the appeal has no force on that count. So far as jurisdiction is concerned, though the prostitution had actually taken place at Bombay, the evidence shows that the appellant had taken the prosecutrix from Mhow with the intention to cause or induce her to carryon prostitution. The court at Mhow had, therefore, jurisdiction to try the case.