ANEETA SISODIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the observations made in paragraph 52 of the judgment dated 26.2.2019 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Case No.57/2018 whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court, while acquitting the accused persons, has directed that the applicants, all of whom are the rescued women by the police in a search conducted under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956"), be further kept in the shelter home/rehabilitation centre till proper arrangements are made.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that on 23.3.2018 a search was conducted by the police in Ward No.4, Kanjar Mohalla, District Panna wherein it was found that various accused persons were involved in the immoral traffic, whereas the women who were present on the spot, including the present applicants, were also suspected to be involved in the prostitution at the instance of the accused persons. Hence, a case was registered against the accused persons and simultaneously the applicants, who were rescued in the search, were sent to the shelter home. Subsequently, after the evidence was led by the prosecution all the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Judge of the trial Court vide its judgment dated 26.2.2019. But, in the aforesaid judgment, while acquitting the accused persons, so far as present applicants are concerned, the following observations were made by the learned Judge of the trial Court in paragraph 52 of the judgment:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the aforesaid observations are contrary to law and facts on record, as no enquiry under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic Act was conducted in the present case and above all, the learned Judge himself has held in the judgment that no case under the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 is made out and the accused persons have already been acquitted. It is submitted that in view of the same, it was not proper for the learned Judge of the trial Court to make the aforesaid observations and allow the applicants, who were allegedly rescued by the police, to continue in the shelter home. Thus, it is submitted that the aforesaid observations be struck off and it may be directed that the applicants be released from the shelter home.