Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J. - Not for dramatic effect but to sting social conscience, we set out the tragic story of this case which is typical of the spreading disease of immoral traffic, to remedy which the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) was enacted by Parliament in a mood of high morality but with such drafting inefficiency that it has pathetically failed to produce any decline in the malady.

2. The scene is the Isias Bar, 15. Free School Street, Calcutta. A hall of enchantment extends nocturnal invitation to have a nice time with svelte sylphs. The entrance fee is but a paltry Rs. 15/- per man and inside is served animating liquor. Scantily clad female flesh of sweet seventeen or thereabouts flit about or sit on laps, to the heady tune of band music. They solicit carnal custom, and the willing male victims pay Rs. 30/-, choose whom they fancy drink together and, taking leave of decencies, indulge in promiscuous sex exercise legally described as operation prostitution. The stage is busy with many men and girls moving into rooms, lavatories and chambers. The curtain rises and a raiding party of police and excise officers surprise this erotic company drowned in drink and damsels.

3. This lecherous drama need not detain us further. The Act went into action, a prosecution was launched against many under S. 7 resulting in conviction and sentence of two persons, the proprietor and the manager of the Isaias Bar oftentimes, a bar or restaurant is a euphemism for a brothel and the socialites, unsuspectedly and without smirch, satisfy their sex in these respectably labelled houses patronised by even prestigious dignitaries and opulent businessmen.

4. .An appeal to the High Court substantially failed and the appeal by the State on some counts, partly succeeded. In this Court, leave was refused regarding the challenge against the guilt and so the findings sustaining the conviction stand; but it is necessary to clarify that ultimately the High Court modified the conviction to an extent and we have to proceed on the footing that the accused having been found guilty of offences under S. 7(2) (a), S 3 (1) but acquitted under S. 7(2) (b). What is most pertinent to the present appeal is that an order was made under Section 18 (1) read with Sec. 18(2) directing.

" the occupiers of portion of premises Nos. 15 and 15/A, Free School Street commonly known as Isias Bar to be evicted therefrom within a period of seven days from the date of this order and restore possession thereof to the owner-landlord or his agent and we further direct that this premises or any portion thereof shall not be leased out, or otherwise given possession of, to or for the benefit of the person or persons, who were connected with the improper user thereof".

We had granted special leave limited to the attack on this order for eviction under S, 18(2) read with Section 18(1). The area of discussion in these arguments is thus confined to the power to throw out the occupier of the guilty premises on conviction for offences under Ss. 3(1) and 7(2) (b) (7 (2) (a) ?) on top of the sentence imposed.

5. An appreciation of the legal tangle can be facilitated by a brief but necessary sketch of the indubitable foundational facts and the basic legal provisions bearing on the orders under S.18, The court, as earlier mentioned, passed an order, following on the sentence, that since a conviction under Ss. 3 and 7 had been rendered, there would be a direction evicting the appellants-occupiers from the theatre of prostitutional operation, viz., the Isiah Bar. The Bar is beyond the offending distance of 200 yards of any public place , referred to in sub-s. (1) of S. 7. The said subsection itemises premises such as places of public religious worship, educational institutions, hostels, hospitals, nursing homes and such other public places as may be notified by the authority designated. At the same time it is a proven fact that the appellants have b