LexRAMESH versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 Bhagwan,bhai Dulahbhai Jarthav v. State •f JltSftara•hlra -- Shalz J. 1961 . 1 .. 1," were accordingly liable to be convicted only of the offence under s. 66(b) of the Act, and the ms.ximum term of imprisonment for a first offence punishable under that section is rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. I, 000/·. We accordingly modify the order passed by the High Court and maintain the conviction of accused Nos. I and 5 under s. 06 (b) and set a.side the order of conviction under ss. 65 (a), 81 and 83 of the Act and the sent- ence passed in respect of those offences. We also modify the sentence imposed by the High Court for the offence under s. 66 (b) of the Act, and direct that each appellant do suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/·, and in default of payment of fine do suffer rigorous impri- sonment for one month and fifteen days. Subject to that modification the appeal is dismissed. RAMF.SH v • THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (B. i'. SINHA. C.J., K. N. WANOHOO and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Criminal Law-Seduction-Aasisting pro•titvte in her pro/eaaion-IJ amoQts to induc•ment to forced or seduced Illicit int<rcourse-Inffian Penal Ooae (Act 45 of 1860), ••· /U, 809, 366, 366 A. , The appellant was convicted of the offence under s. 366A read withs. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against him was that A who was a minor below the age of 18 years was brought up by P and had before the date of the offence been habituated to the life of a prostitute. On the day in question the appellant went to the residence of P and aaked him to bring A to a theatre, P accompanied A to the f- >- - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPoRTS 307 theatre where the latter sought some customers. They were taken by another person to a plaee called Bohori Kath~da. at which place A was invited for the purpose of prostitution. When p accompanied A to the theatre and from there to Bohori Kathada he knew that she was going for plying her profession as a prostitute. Held that the appellant could not in law be held guilty of abetting the commission of an offence under s. 366A of the Indian Penal Code by P. A person who merely accompanies a woman going out to ply her orofession of a prostitute, even if she has not attained the age of 18 years, could not be said thereby to induce her to go from any place or to do any act with the intent or knowledge that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse within the meaning of s. 366 A. Seduction implies surrender of her body by a woman who is otherwise reluctant or unwilling to submit herself to illicit intercourse whether such surrender is for the firb t time or is preceded by similar surrender on earlier occasions ; but where a person in the course of her profession as a prostitute offers herself for profession as a prostitute offers herself for intercourse, there are no sucruplcs nor reluctance to be over· come, and surrender by her is not seduction within the Code. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDIOTION: Criminal .Appeal No. 72 of 196I. Appeal by special leave from tbs judgment and order dated December 20, 1960, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal A peal No. 1207 of 1960. J ai Gopal Sethi, O.L, Sareen and R.L. Kohli, for the appellant, G. 0. Mathur and P, D. Menon, for the respondent. 1962. July 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-On May i', 1962, we ordered•after arguments were concluded that the appeal be allow- ed and the conviction of the appellant be set aside. We now proceed to record our reasons in support of the order. 1962 Flainesh . ,v. Slate of :Maha•111htr11 ,,~,. J. 1988 B•Mesh v. sea1e of Mqharaalltr• ShahJ. a9S SUP~~ COU:R.1' REPORTS (1963) The appellant, Ramesh Amin, and seven others were tried in the Court of Session, Aur<1ngabad, for offences punishable under ss. 366, 366A. Indian Penal Code, and abetment thereof. The appellant was the third accused at the trial. The Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos. I to 4 and 7 of the offences charged against them and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for each offence, and acquitted the rest. The High Court of Bombay entertained appeal of accused Nos. 1 to 4 (bnt not of accused No. 7) and set aside the order of conviction and sentence against them for 'the offences punishable under s. 366 read with s. 34 and s. 366A of the Indi:i.n Penal Code. The High Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.