The judgment establishes the distinction between substantive offence and abetment under the Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1923, and emphasizes the requirement of intentional aid for abetment.

JUDGMENT

Panckridge, J. - The appellant Braja Mohan Saha has been convicted of an offence punishable u/s 6, Sub-section (1), Calcutta Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1923, and the appellant Padmamoni Dasi has been convicted of abetment of the offence of which appellant 1 has been convicted, that is to say, she has been convicted of an offence punishable u/s 6, Sub-section (1) of the said Act read with Section 109, I. P. C.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: Inspector Madan Mohan Chakravarty of the Calcutta Police received instructions to watch a certain house numbered 12/6, Nilmoni Dutt Lane, with a view to discover whether or not it was used as a brothel. He proceeded to watch the house during the early part of the night and he discovered that several men visited it. After having watched for two nights he entered the house in plain clothes. He found two men there and the girl in respect of whom the appellants have been convicted, namely, Durgabala Dasi with them on the verandah. Shortly after the appellant Braja Mohan arrived. While he was there another man arrived of the name of Rahimuddin who has not been called as a witness for the prosecution. Investigation has established that the house is the joint property of the female appellant and the mother of the male appellant. The female appellant apparently led the life of a prostitute in her early days and she has borne three daughters the youngest of whom is the girl Durgabala who is now about 20 years old. One of these daughters is now in the keeping of a man and has nothing to do with this case and may be dismissed from our consideration. Apparently the second daughter was for some years the mistress of the male appellant and bore him a number of children. However the male appellant and his mistress fell out and she is now being; maintained by another man.

3. With regard to Durgabala a body of evidence has been called to prove that she is following the profession of a prostitute and that men are introduced to her through the instrumentality of the male appellant. The Inspector stated that he had obtained information from various informers whose names he was at first unwilling to disclose though he subsequently revealed them. In consequence of that information he was successful in getting into touch with various men who were in the habit of visiting the house. Certain of these men have given evidence. One Satya Charan Chakrabarty who lives close to the house in question states that he has lived in the locality all his life: that he is now 40 years old and that as long as he can remember the house has been used as a brothel. He further states that he knows both the male appellant and the female appellant and he has often heard them quarrelling over money. Panchu Ghose, another witness, gives evidence to the same effect. So does the witness Munindra Nath Mitter. There are two other witnesses, Sukumar Ghose and Bhola Nath Sen who have given evidence of the nature I have indicated. But for reasons which he states in his judgment the learned Judge considers these two witnesses unworthy of credit and we therefore dismiss their evidence from our consideration. In addition there is the evidence of Satyadhan Chakrabarty, Rabindra Nath Rudra and Ratindra Mohan Mukherji. Two of these witnesses state that they were introduced to the girl by the male appellant and that they sometimes paid money to him and sometimes to the female appellant.

4. Various suggestions were put forward-on behalf of the male appellant. It was said that he is a man of means and therefore has no temptation to maintain himself on the immoral earnings of Durgabala. It is stated that he inherited Rs. 9,500 from his uncle some ten years ago and that he owns a house. As regards the house the evidence is that it is mortgaged and is in possession of the mortgagee and that the appellant has to pay interest on the mortgage money so that the ownership of the house is of very little advantage to him. As regards the mon