(1.) The three petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the charge framed against them under Section 4, Clause (2)(a) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, by a Munsif Magistrate exercising first class powers at Gaya. They had also moved the Sessions Judge of Gaya and their application was finally heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Court of that place who found that there was no ground for framing charge against the petitioners under Section 4 of the said Act, but refused to make a reference to this Court on the ground that the matter was not of public importance,
(2.) Sub -section (2) of Section 251A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, if upon consideration of all the documents referred to in Section 173 of that Lode and making such examination, if any of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless he shall discharge him. According to this subsection therefore a charge can be framed against the accused only if the documents referred to in Section 173 of the Code are (1) a copy of the report forwarded under Sub -section (1) of that section that is, the charge -sheet (2) the first information report and (3) other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely including the statements before the police of the witnesses proposed to be examined on behalf of the prosecution.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the State was not able to show that the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that there was no ground for framing charge against the petitioners under Section 4 of the said Act because there was no material to show that they committed any offence was wrong. The other documents including the statements of the prosecution witnesses before the police supplied to the petitioners are not on the record, but the chargesheet and the first information report are there. I have perused them. Even according to these two documents these petitioners were mere visitors to the house of the prostitute where they were found and arrested by the police on 3rd of June 1965 in mohalla Sarai in the town of Gaya. According to Section 4, Clause (2)(a) of the Supression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, any person proved to be living with, or to be habitually in the company of a prostitute is guilty of an offence. A mere visitor cannot be said to be living with or to be habitually in the company of a prostitute. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioners were seen with the girls on any other occasion. In the circumstances the Munsif Magistrate was not justified in framing the charge against these petitioners.