SHALLY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated l5th of November,1991, whereby the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak dated lst of October, 1991, for sending the petitioner and Rajni petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 789 of 1991 in protective home known as Sewa Sadan at Faridabad, for a period of three years, was modified to the extent that the period for which the petitioner in each case was to be kept in protective home was reduced from 3 years to two years. As common questions of law and facts are involved, both these revision petitions shall be disposed of by one order.

(2.) In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 8th September, 199l police party headed by DSP Ram Kumar on receipt of information organised a raiding party in which Randhir Singh and Khushi Ram were also associated. The said police party raided the house of Varinder situated in Sector 1, HUDA, Rohtak, against whom the information was that he had brought two prostitutes from Delhi and was keeping them in the said house for use as prostitutes at higher rate. 5-6 persons were present there along with the petitioners namely Shally and Rajni. Both the petitioners were partly naked and had exposed their organs. Two other male partly naked were also present and were touching the organs of the women. The raiding party entered the house after breaking open the door. The petitioners were asked to clothe themselves and they along with other persons including Varinder were secured. All the accused were produced before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, who held enquiry as required in sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate called for the report of the District Probation Officer; constituted a five member panel; recorded the statements of the two petitioners, as well as of their alleged husbands, and, thereafter passed the impugned order directing the aforesaid two petitioners to be kept in Protective Home at Faridabad.

(3.) The learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioners it was mainly contended that both the petitioners are married women and were not carrying on prostitution for the benefit of another person, or in collusion with another prostitute, and, as such no action against the petitioners could be taken under Section 17 of the Act. It was further contended that in the absence of clear finding of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate that the petitioners were carrying on prostitution for pleasure near a public place and for seducing or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, no action could be taken against them under Section 17 of the Act and they cannot be sent to the Protective Home. The argument advanced is devoid of any merit. In the instant case ,the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate gave adequate opportunity to the petitioners; recorded their statements and those of their alleged husbands namely Billu and Rakesh Kumar and then passed the impugned order. Both the Courts below after duly considering the record gave a specific finding that both the petitioners were unmarried and reside at Delhi, were brought to the house of Varinder at Rohtak from Delhi, which was used as a brothel, for the purpose of prostitution for his gain, which is based on legal and cogent basis and cannot be set aside. The impugned order whereby both the petitioners were directed to be kept in Protective Home is perfectly legal and valid and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary as referred to above, is hardly tenable in view of facts and circumstances of the present case.