IMPORTANT POINT
Offence under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are triable by Judicial Magistrate First class as provided u/s. 22 of the Act and hence cognizance of the case by Magistrate as a Preliminary Registry case is bad whereas it ought to be as a Calendar case.

ORDER

Janarthanam, J. - Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1998, praying the High Court to revise the Order of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Tambaram and passed in P.R.C. 25 of 1991.

ORDER:- This petition coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition, and the Order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.N. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. G. Kumaravel, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, the Court made the following order:

The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Tambaram-the respondent herein filed a final report under section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the petitioners herein accused 1 to 6 for the alleged offences under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 8(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram who took it on his file as P.R.C. No. 25/91.

2. Process appeared to have been issued to the accused in the Court below and all the accused appeared to have entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice and copies of records had been furnished to them. It is, at this stage, the petitioners/accused I to 6 resorted to this present action, by filing a revision before this court and this Court admitted the revision on 6.12.1991, and ordered notice to the respondent.

3. Learned Government Advocate represented the respondent-state.

4. Along with the revision, the petitioners/ accused 1 to 6 also filed a Miscellaneous Petition in Crl. M.P. No. 7346 of 1991 for staying the proceedings in the aforesaid P.R. Case pending disposal of this revision and the said stay petition came up for hearing to-day. Both learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused 1 to 6 as well as learned Government Advocate consented for taking up the revision itself for final disposal today. Accordingly, this revision is taken up for final disposal to-day.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that learned Magistrate committed a serious error of law, in taking cognizance of the case as a P.R. Case and, therefore, it is, he would say, that the case, if at all, can be taken cognizance of only as a Calendar Case and this will be patent from a consideration of the various provisions adumbrated in the Act as well as the Code.

6. Learned Government Advocate would however repel such a submission.

7. Section 3 of the Act prescribes punishment for keeping a borthel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Keeping a brothel shall be punishable, under sub Section (1) there of on first conviction, with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

8. Section 4 deals with punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution and the punishment provided therein shall be with imprisonment for a term which may extent to two years with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both and where such earnings relate to the prostitution of a child or a minor, the punishment shall be with imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than ten years.

9. Section 6 deals with detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on and the punishment provided therein shall be with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The section further provides for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than seven years for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment.

10. Section 8 ma