SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Bom) 124

M.C.CHAGLA, P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR
Shantabai Rani Benoor – Appellant
Versus
N. R. – Respondent


Judgment

Chagla, C.J.

1. By this petn. an order made under Section 9(1), Bombay Prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923, by the Addl. Dist. Mag. of Poona, is being challenged. The order served upon the petnr. stated that whereas it had been brought to the notice of the Addl. Dist. Mag. that the petnr. resided in or used or frequented in POONa City house No. 402 Budhwar Peth in which the business of a common prostitute was carried on, the Addl. Dist. Mag. directed the petnr. to remove herself from Poona City to a place beyond the radius of five miles from Poona City before 30-9-1950. The order is dated 11.8-1950.

2. Mr. Daundkar contends that Section 9(1) of the Act is void inasmuch as it places an unreasonable restriction upon the right of the citizen conferred upon him by Article 19(d) (e) of the Constitution. Section 9(l) confers upon the Comr. of Police, Greater Bombay, upon the Dist. Mag- outside Greater Bombay, power to cause a notice to be served upon any person who occupies or manages or acts or assists in the management of, or upon any woman who resides in, uses or frequents, any house, or room or place in which the business of a common prostitute is carried on, requiring suc





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top