The onus of proving a premises as a brothel remains on the prosecution, and the lack of legal evidence and corroboration from accomplices can lead to acquittal.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against convictions under Sections 3 (1), 3 (2) (a) 3 (2) (b), 7 (2) (a) and 7 (2) (b) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 3 (1) of the Act. No separate sentence was passed on other heads of charges.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is as follows: On June 14, 1960, A. K. Gupta, Assistant Commissioner of Police acting on a prior information raided premises No. 149, Masjidbari Street, Calcutta, and arrested the appellant and three others, Radhika, Sakina and Mira. A case under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code was then started against Radhika. On October 12, 1960, the said Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a written complaint in terms of which a formal first information report was drawn up against this appellant, Sakina Bibi and Mira Shaw alias Mahboob, the last two were discharged by the Magistrate on police report during investigations. It is alleged that appellant acted as manager of a brothel at 149, Masjidbari Street, in relation to the four girls rescued in the police raid. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution version of the story and convicted the appellant.

( 3 ) THE defence is a plea of innocence and a denial that the premises was brothel or that he was manager.

( 4 ) SECTION 3 provides for punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Brothel is defined in Section 2, Sub-section (a ). Relevant Portion at Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as follows:" (2) any person who- (a) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses or knowingly allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or (b) being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor, or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and 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 which may extend to five years and also with fine".

( 5 ) THE premises is stated to be owned by one Chedi Shaw with appellant as his manager. Chedi is not an accused, notwithstanding Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of this Act. The name transpired during investigation and the Assistant Commissioner, P. W. 12, stated that he looked for Chedi Shaw but could not find him.

( 6 ) PROSECUTION has examined a number of witnesses to prove that Chedi was owner, appellant was his manager and that this premises was used as a brothel. Who are these witnesses? The only witness, who proves Chedi as the owner and the accused as his manager is P, W. 3, who lived in the premises as a prostitute. She is a mistress of P. W. 2 but P. W. 2 does not speak of Chedi as owner or petitioner as his manager. Calcutta Corporation papers would have easily proved the name of the owner, who is equally liable under the law, but the prosecution was unusually soft towards him but prosecutes the petitioner as his manager,

( 7 ) PROSECUTION has advanced some evidence that the petitioner collected rent from the inmates, though no rent receipts can be produced, as none is granted. The witnesses, P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 speak of realisation of rent; of them P. Ws. 2 and 4 are pimps and the test are prostitutes. They are accomplices and some of them were even arrested in course of this raid. They have been discharged but brought from the brothel to depose against appellant. The evidence lacks corroboration and accomplices cannot corroborate each other.

( 8 ) PETITIONER examined some defence witnesses. Of them D. W. 1, Sibsankar, lived with family one house apart from 149, Mas