LexKAMALABAI JETHAMAL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
632 SUPREME COt.:RT liEfORTS (!~(,~] Stf P. ,!·62 KAMALABAI JETHAMAL ]C?t;,.iry 18. v. THE STATE u.b' .MAHARASHTRA (J. L. KAPUR and RAGUUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Imnwral TralJic-Suppre.,ion rf prostitution-Employ- ·monl of youngmen by the po/ice for JJe1rr1;, n of n!Jence-lf proper-Validity of C<mt'iction- lli~J. Court's P""" <f ri:iction- ~uppr ... <ion of lmnwral Traffic ;,. Wom,n and (;iris Ad, 1956 (104 of 1946), of as. 3(2j, 4(1), JU. On learning that tt1c appcHant \\as using her prcmhcs a! a broihcl aud was supplyu11, gi1ls for the purpo>e ul prosti· tution, the poJtLC arranged to lay a trap. With two ouc hundred rupees mJ.rked cur1c11cy nutcs given Liy tlJe police two per:-.•n1s, M anU L, \Vent to the prcml!,cs cxcupicd by the appellant ; M was lo a•k for a girl for the purpose of pros· tnution aud L wa" to Uc a witness ol the fact. M selected a girl and gave the oue uundrcd rupees uote to the appellant who put u under her l>luus_c. \\.hen Mand the ~irJ were in the roon1, on signal Oe1ug giver1, the pvlicc entered the room and found then1 in a r;1t11cr cumpromrsing po.sition. A v-·oman Panch v.: ho had .1ccoH1pan1cJ rhc Police party searched the appelJanr and recovt(cd the one hundred rupees cur1 ency note frorn under tl1e liJousc. The appellant was tried tor ottcnces under ss.3(2) and 4(1) of the SuppresSlc>n of Immoral Tratic in Women and Girl.i Act, l~.(>6, !Jy th~ !\.Iag1srrat~ who, however, acquitted her. Ou appeal, the High Court ac.;ccpte<l 1he prosecution case an<l conv1cle<l the appellant and, hu ther ordered her eviction. The High Court accepted the le>umoney of L in regard to the J.iaymtllt of the htJnd1t<1 rupce.s currency note to the appcilant a11tl also the evidence 1n the case to show that the amount was u~ed lor t11c pw·po~c of pro:ititution. The appellant contended (I) that tt.c convic1ion was bad because it was based only on the evidence o! the police and its agents, and the search was not ~onductcd in accordance with the provisions of the Code ot Crunmal ProceJure, and ( 2) that, in any case, only the Magi:.trate was given the power of eviction under s. 18 of the Act. Held, that on 1he evidence accepted by the High Court, the conviction of the appellant wa:i valid. The practice of the Governmental authomy, like the police employing young men, particularly studenlS studying at th~ educational insututions, as in the picacnt caK, m 28.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 633 order to suppress immoral traffic in women and to stop prostitution, cohdemned. Held, further, that the High Court having ordered the conviction of the appellant, had the power to evict her under '· 18 of the Act. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi- nal Appeal No. lti74of 1901. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 29, and October 11, ll!61, of the .Bombay ,_High. _Court in Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1961. S. G. Patwardhan, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Nara·in for the appellant. H. R. Khanna and P. D. Me'fl(ll'I for the res- pondent. 1962. January 18.-The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is an appeal against the judg- ment and order of the High Court of Bombay set· ting a.side the order of acquittal of the appellant and sentencing her to one year's rigorous imprison· ment and evicting her from the premises which she wa.s occupying as a tenant. The appellant was tried by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, for offences under ss, 3(2) and 4(1) of the Suppres- sion of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Aot (Act 104 of 1956) hereinafter called the' Act'. The charge against the appellant was that she supplied a girl to Mall!Ilohan Anandji Mehta who is a witness and she kept or managed a brothel at block No. 6, plot No. 144, Shivaji Park, Bombay;- that she knowingly lived on the earnings of prostitution and that she procured women for the purpose of pros- titution. The story of the prosecution was that information was received by Police Superin· tendent Kanga that the premises were being used as a brothel and that the appellant was supplying lu6Z Kamalahai J11hamal v. The Slate of Maharrrshlra. Knpur J. 19tS Earr.alabrii Jethamal v. Th, Stale of M aharalhtra Kapt1r.J. 634 SUPREME COURT REFORTS [1962) SUPP. girls for the purpose of prostitution. He thereupon laid a trap and sent two persons, Manmohan Anandji Mehta and Prabhak11r K. Loke, the former was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.