KAMBHO BERA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one Kambhoo Bera, who has been convicted by Mr. J.D. Tyson, formerly Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, under Section 6 of the Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (Bengal Act 13 of 1923), and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, with an additional terms of six months rigorous imprisonment in the event of default to pay the fine. The case is stated to be the first of its kind and keenly contested before the Magistrate. The section in question reads as follows: 6(1) Any male person, who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution, shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, or with whipping, or with both of those punishments, and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. (2) Where a male person is proved : (i) to be; living with, or to be habitually in the company of a prostitute, or (ii), to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute, in such a manner as to show that he is aiding abetting or compelling her prostitution with any other person, or generally, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that he is knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution.

(2.) The case, as originally set up before the Additional Presidency Magistrate, Mr. River, was with special reference to Sub-section (2) of the section and the charge was-framed in these terms: That you Kambhoo Bera, between the first day of August 1925 and the 29 day of July 1926, in the town of Calcutta being a male person knowingly lived wholly, or in part on the earnings of prostitution of several inmates of premises-No. 37, Uma Das Lane, Calcutta, to wit, amongst others of Hari Bai, Paro, Chandra Debi, Saroj, Lakshimi and Sashi, by living with or being habitually in the company of the said prostitutes, or having exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of the said prostitutes in such a manner as to show that you were aiding or compelling their prostitution with other persons generally, and thereby you, the said Kambhoo Bora, committed an offence punishable under Section 6, Clause (1) Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act and within my cognizance.

(3.) The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate observed that the charge had been inartistically drawn, that it undertook to prove more than the prosecution had been able to establish, and more than it was presumably ever intended to establish, since there was no case in respect, of any of the women save and except, Saroj, and that, as matters stood, he was unable to hold it proved that Kambhoo lived with Saroj. He then went on to record the following findings: I do not think it is at all proved that Kambhoo lives at 37, Uma Das Lane; the probability is that he lives at 64, Free School Street.... I am satisfied that he goes to Uma Das Lane and sits at the gates of the brothel at nights, and that he takes a hand in the proceedings there, and even accepts money, though I do not think it is satisfactorily proved what money it is that he takes. There is evidence that his men bring visitors; this, coupled with his evident desire to get Chandra back when she ran away...indicates an exercise of control in such a way as to suggest that he was aiding and even compelling to prostitution. The evidence on these points is, however, not conclusive, and I am not prepared to raise the presumption permitted by Sub-section (2) of Section 6.