1. The petitioner allegedly committed offences under the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act, for short).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the prosecution, the petitioner is one of the customers of a brothel house and not a person running the brothel house or acting as a pip for the personnel in the brothel house. He submitted that under the provisions of the Act, a customer to the brothel house is not punishable.

3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1230 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012. This Court held that Section 4 is meant to punish the people living on the earnings of prostitution and that a person who is visiting the brothel house would not be covered by the Act. Similar view was taken by this Court in Z. Lourdiah Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh(2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 393 (AP)). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case can prima facie be made out against the petitioner and that the petition against him, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

4. Section 3 of