AMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Singh, son of Ram Ditta Singh, aged about 38 years, a Government servant employed in the Industries Department of the Punjab Government, residing at quarter No. 16 -A in Sector 20 -B in Chandigarh has filed this revision petition to set aside his conviction under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and to set aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 50 on the first count and the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for six months on the second count, which convictions and sentences originally imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, on 31st December, 1964, have been upheld in appeal by Shri Manmohan Singh Gujral, Sessions Judge. Ambala, in his judgment dated 2nd February. 1965, which is sought to be revised in this case.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution story. Mohinder Singh (P.W. 3) had come to his present residence in March, 1964, after exchanging his original quarter with Mohan Singh (P.W. 1). The ground floor of his present premises is occupied by Mehnga Singh (P.W. 5). On July 25, 1964. Mohinder Singh (P.W.) went to the notice post in Sector 19 at Chandigarh and from there went with S.I. Bakhshi Om Parkash (P.W. 10) to P.W. 7 Shri Daljit Singh Dhillon. Superintendent of Police, who is a special police officer appointed for carrying out raids, etc., in cases under the Act, Before that Officer. Mohinder Singh (P.W.) gave statement Exhibit P.A. In this report. Mohinder Singh stated that Mehnga Singh had complained to him about the accused running a brothel at his residence and that at about 6.00 p.m. on that day Mehnga Singh had introduced the accused to this witness and in order to put an end to the kind of vice complained of by Mehnga Singh, the witness had talked to the accused and subsequently gone to the house of the accused and had settled with him to obtain the person of his wife for sexual intercourse with her on payment of a sum of Rs. 5 and on giving a pint of liquor to the accused. Mohinder Singh (P.W.) produced currency note Exhibit P. 1 of the denomination of Rs. 5, the number of which was noted. It is alleged that this witness went to the house of the accused and gave this currency note and a pint of liquor to the accused, on petting which Amar Singh left the witness and his wife Charan Kaur in the room and himself walked into the kitchen of the house. On the other side the Special Police Officer Shri Daliit Singh Dhillon had organized a raid consisting of Vishnu Rai (P.W. 4), a pavement cycle repairer. Bachan Singh (P.W. 8) and some police officials. A lady constable is also said to have been included in this raiding party. Before reaching the house of Amar Singh accused, the Special Police Officer is stated to have associated Mehnga Singh (P.W. 5) also in the party. It is then alleged that on getting a signal, the party raided the room of the accused which was just opposite a similar room on the same floor occupied by some other Government servant in which light was on at that time. The allegation is that the accused had obliged the raiding party by not even bolting the room from inside and all that the party had to do was to push open the door to find Mohinder Singh (P.W.) interlocked with the wife of the accused in the course of sexual intercourse. Amar Singh accused was seen sitting in the kitchen and taking liquor. Vide memorandum Exhibit P.C., the five rupee currency note was taken over from the accused and he as well as his wife were arrested. Even if all the allegations were correct, no offence against the wife could be made out and therefore, she was discharged on 2nd September, 1964.

(3.) MR . P.S. Mann, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has urged several points in support of the revision petition. He has taken me through a substantial part of the record of the case and has pointed out various infirmities and improbabilities in the prosecution story and has tried to argue that the case of the prosecution is not believable. He has also argued that even if the allegations of the prosecution could be believed the case against the Petitioner could not fall under Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Act but could at best fall within the mischief of Sub -section (2) of that section. The effect of this change would be that the fetter of the minimum sentence of one year prescribed under Sub -section (1) of Section 3 would be thrown off by the Petitioner if his case could be covered only by Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Though there seems to be some force in the second contention of the Petitioner and there may be some life in his first contention, I do not propose to deal with any of these points at any length in view of the third contention of the learned Counsel having prevailed with me. This contention is that the conviction of the Petitioner is liable to be set aside as the same is vitiated on account of non -compliance with Sub -section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. It is argued that compliance with this provision particularly in so far as it relates to the necessity of associating a lady in the search under this Act is mandatory. Section 15(2) of the Act reads as follows: