LexKRISHNAMURTHY @ TAILOR KRISHNAN versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KRISHNAMURTHY @ TAILOR KRISH.t'IAN . v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS September 26, 1966 A (V. RAMASWAMI, V. BHARGAVA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.j B Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956), s. 3(i)-Jngredients-Sing/e instance, sufjiciency--Convlc- tion under Madras Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act-1/ previour con- viction. On information received that the house occupied by the appellant, was used as a brothel, the police laid a trap and recovered marked :urrency notes from the person of the appellant,. and the decoy and a girl were fOllbd in a. dishevelled condition in a room. Thereupon the appellant was charged under s. 3 (I) of the Suppression of Immoral Tra11ic in Women and Girls' Act and was convicted under s. 4( I). of the Act He and the State appealed to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal,. hut allowed the State's appeal by allering the con- viction under s. 3 (I) and enhancing his pun"-ihment as be was second offender. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that (iJ the facts did not make out the offence under s. 3(1) of the Act, and (ii) bis present conviction could not be considered 10 be a second conviction under s. 3( 1) of the Act as his previous conviction was under the Mad- ras Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1930. HELD: (i) The appellant's conviction under s. 3(1) of the Act was correct The facts in this case justify,the conclusion that the appellant was keeping a brothel at his house. One will be guilty of the offence under s. 3 (I) of the Act if he does any of the acts mentioned in that •ub..section in relation to a brothel. The girls were offered for the pur- pose of prostitution. The house was used for such purposes, undoubted- ly for the gain of the appellant who pocketed the money for committing prostitution. Of course It can be presumed that the girls who were being offered for the purpose of prostitution. would also obtain man.,. tary gain out of the amount paid. [587 H-588 BJ It was not necessary that there should have been evidence of repe:\led visits by persons to the place for the purpose 9f prostitution. A single instance coupled with surrounding circumstances was suffi.cil'-Dt 10 estaO. lish both that the place was being used as a brothel and that the person alleged was so keeping it. [588 E] (H) The conviction of the appellant was a second conviction within c D E F the meaning of s. 3 ( 1) of the Act. When the Act came into force in G 1956, the corresponding provisions of the Madras Act stood repealed, hy virtue of s. 25( I). By virtue of suh-s. (2) the conviction of the r appellant under the Madras Act would he deemed to be in force at the time the conviction took place. [589 EJ CRIMINAL APPEi.i.ATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 19, 1964 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 197 and 430 of 1963. H KRISHNAMURTHY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Dayal, J.) 587 A R. Thiagarajdn and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant. Bishan Narain and A. V. Rangam, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. Krishnamurthy @ Krishnan was convicted by the III Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, of the offence B under s. 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956), hereinafter called the Act, and was sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment, though he was charged with an offence under s. 3(1) of that Act. He ap- pealed against his conviction to the High Court. The State Govern- ment appealed to the High Court against the acquittal of the appel- C · 1ant of the offence under s. 3(1) of the Act. The High Court dis- missed the appellants' appeal but allowed the State appeal and altered the appellant's conviction to one under s. 3(1) of the Act and sentenced him to two years'. rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- as he was a second offender. It is against this order of the High Court that the appellant appeals, by special leave. D E F G H The prosecution case, briefly, is that the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), P.W.4, having information that the house occupied by the appellant 'was being used as a brothel with thtee girls, Saroja, Ambika and Lakshmi. deputed Shanmugham, P.W.2, as a decoy, on August 22, 1962. Shanmugham was given three marked JO-rupee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.