A court convicting a person of offences under Section 3 or Section 7 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, has the power to order the eviction of the offender from the premises under Section 18 of the Act.

Judgment

KAPUR, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay setting aside the order of acquittal of the appellant and sentencing her to one year s rigorous imprisonment and evicting her from the premises which she was occupying as a tenant.

2. The appellant was tried by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, for offences under Ss. 3 (2) and 4 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (Act 104 of 1956) hereinafter called the Act . The charge against the appellant was that she supplied a girl to Manmohan 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 prostitution. The story of the prosecution was that information was received by Police Superintendent Kanga that the premises were being used as a brothel and that the appellant was supplying girls for the purpose of prostitution. He thereupon laid a trap and sent two persons, Manmohan Anandji Mehta and Prabhakar K. Loke, the former was to ask for a girl for the purpose of prostitution and the latter was to be a panch i.e. a witness of that fact. Sub-Inspector Purohit, it is stated, gave two one hundred rupees marked currency notes to Manmohan Anandji Mehta with the instruction that he was to pay out of that to the appellant and thus to obtain a girl from her for the purpose of prostitution. He along with Loke went to the house of the appellant, rang the bell and was admitted by her. He then asked the appellant to arrange a girl for him and both Monmohan Anandji Mehta and Loke are alleged to have said that they wanted two girls for enjoyment. Two girls were shown, one Kamal Govind and the other Indu Bapurao Salunke both of whom are witnesses. The amount quoted by the appellant in the case of the former was Rs.100/- and for the latter Rs. 50/-. Manmohan Anandji Mehta selected Kamal and handed over one hundred rupees currency note to the appellant which she put under her blouse. Manmohan Anandji Mehta and the girl then went into the kitchen and there they undressed and were later found naked on the floor and in a rather compromising position. On a signal being given the police i. e. Superintendent Kanga and Sub-Inspector Purohit entered the premises and were told by Loke that Manmohan Anandji Mehta and the girl were in the kitchen. The police officers opened the door of the kitchen and found both Manmohan Anandji Mehta and Kamal as stated above. They then were asked to dress and come out. Manmohan Anandji Mehta then returned the other one hundred rupees currency note to Superintendent Kanga. A woman Panch who had accompanied the police party searched the appellant and recovered the one hundred rupees currency note from under the blouse. It is stated that the male members of the party were at that time in a passage adjoining the hall where the appellant was searched. The appellant was tried for the offences above mentioned but was acquitted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. On appeal the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and sentenced her to a year s rigorous imprisonment and also ordered her eviction from the premises she was occupying as a tenant.

3. The evidence mainly consists of Manmohan Anandji Mehta and Loke and the two police officers. The testimony of Manmohan Anandji Mehta and Loke by itself may not, in the circumstances of the case, be of much value but their testimony receives corroboration and thus gives credence to the prosecution case. The evidence of Police Superintendent Kanga shows that when the door of the kitchen was pushed open both Kamal and Manmohan Anandji Mehta were naked and were in a compromising position; their clothes were lying by the side of the mattress. The testimony of Sub-Inspector Purohit is also to the same effect. The other circumstance which is very much against the appell