STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GOBINDA PRADHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Gobinda Pradhan and two women, viz., Respondent No. 2 Bahidei Hantala and Respondent No. 3 Phulmati Nag stand charged under Section 7(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for carrying on prostitution in a public place. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were further charged under Sections 4(1) (2) and 8 of the Act for living on the earnings of prostitution and for seducing and soliciting for purposes of prostitution. Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar was prosecuted for having committed offences under Section 3(1) of the Act for keeping and maintaining a brothel, under Section 4(1) of the Act for living on the earnings of prostitution, and under Section 5(1) of the Act for procuring women/girls for the sake of prostitution.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows: The sub -Inspector of Police Dandapani Patnaik (P.W. 7) lodged a written report before the then Officer in -charge of Jeypore police station on 4 -10 -1975 to the effect that accused Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar was keeping a brothel at Narayantota Sahi at Jeypore by procuring females from outside and he and the females engaged by him were living entirely on the earnings of the prostitution. According to the prosecution Narayantota Sahi is a public place and prostitution is carried on openly and the prostitutes tempt and attract the passers by, by gestures and exposures of their body. Public religious places of worship like Hanuman temple, Gurudwar are situated within a distance of fifty yards from the house of Respondent No. 4. The report of the Sub -Inspector was treated as first information report and has been marked as Ext. 1. As the Officer -in -charge of the police station had no power to investigate into the offence, the Deputy Inspector of Police (P.W. 4) took up investigation and in the night of occurrence the house of Respondent No. 4 was raided and it was found that Respondent No. 1 Gobinda Pradhan was in a compromising position with Respondent No. 3 Dhulmati and Respondent No. 2 Bahidei was found in a compromising position with one Hari Bag and they were naked at that time. It is the prosecution case that the house belongs to Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar and he was maintaining a brothel, allowing his premises to be used as brothel living on the earnings of prostitution and was procuring/inducing women/girls for the sake of prostitution. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons and all the four accused persons were tried in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore who acquitted all the accused -Respondents.

(3.) IN reply, learned Additional Government Advocate relied on a decision reported in Krishnamurthy alias Tailor Krishnan v. Public Prosecutor, Madras, : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 567 wherein it has been held.