Bombay High Court
A.G.Narvel
Versus
B.I.Nhinglavha and others
Decided On:

Headnote:Bombay Police Act, 1951

       Section 2(1) and no-Rules made there under, Rule 32-Cancellation of licence under Rule 32 granted to petitioner running lodging home On ground of using lodging home for immoral purposes and permitting prostitutes for same-Lodging home being place of public entertainment as defined under Section 2(1) of Act Use for immoral purposes by petitioner knowingly not established-Held, thus, conviction under Section 110 can be made no basis for canceling licence under Rule 32.-ln the instant case, it is not the allegation that there were persons of notoriously bad character remaining in the place. The allegation seems to be that the place was being used by prostitutes for their trade. Under Section 2(1) of the Bombay Police Act, place of public entertainment is defined and it includes a Lodging House. The question is whether prostitutes were permitted to carryon trade knowingly by the persons of the said Lodge.

       In the first place, the petitioner herein, was not charged for any offence under Section 110. Secondly, conviction was of the persons found on the premises under Section 110. The copies of the judgments convicting such persons and on which the petitioner was called upon to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled were not made available to him. Rule 32 provides that the person must knowingly permit prostitutes to carryon their trade. A conviction under Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act ipso facto does not mean that a person arrested is a prostitute. For the control of prostitution there is a separate Act known as the Prevention of Immoral Traffic in Women Act., Therefore, whereas Rule 32 speaks about prostitution being carried on Section 110 (If the Police Act speaks about indecent exposure in any street or public place. Section 110 further provides that a person must not willfully and indecently exhibit his person. In the instant case, it is not alleged that the petitioner exhibited his person. The contention was that he allowed prostitution to be carried on. Ex-facie, therefore, a conviction under Section 110 cannot be the basis to cancel a licence under Rule 32.

       For Citation : 1999 (101) 1 Bom LR 196 at.198 : 1999 All MR (6) 495