( 1 ) MR. Thakore the learned advocate for the appellant raised two contentions. The first is that in view of the Gulam Hussains evidence at any rate prosecution cannot be said to have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant had accepted the amount of Rs. 7/for offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire as required under sec. 7 of the Act. The other contention is that even if that were to be held as established on such evidence one such incident cannot be taken as enough to hold that she was carrying on prostitution as alleged by the prosecution under sec. 7 (1) read with the definition of the term prostitution under sec. 2 clause (f) of the Act. I would take up the latter point first. For considering the same it would be essential to refer to section 7 (1) as also the definition of the term prostitution given in sec. 2 clause (f) of the Act. Sec. 7 (1) of the Act provides as under:-ANY woman or girl who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on in any premises which are within a distance of two hundred yards of any place of public religious worship educational institution hostel hospital nursing home or such other public place of any kind as may be notified; this behalf by the Commissioner of Police or District Magistrate in the manner prescribed shall be punishable with imprisonment. . . . . . . In order to consider the effect of the words carrying on prostitution used in this section we have to turn to clause (f) of sec. 2 which defines prostitution as meaning the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire whether in money or in kind. It would follow therefrom that the prosecution has to establish firstly that the accused No. 1 was carrying on prostitution and secondly that it was being so carried on in premises which was within a distance of 200 yards of any place such as an educational institution as alleged in this case before she can be convicted of the offence under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. As to her house being within a distance of less than 200 yards from the Vishwabharthi Girls School nearby there is enough evidence and over which there is no dispute whatever. It is also not in dispute that the prostitution can as well be said to be carried on either by any woman or girl on herself or in respect of any other woman or girl in such premises. The present case is said to relate to the prostitution by accused No. 1 on herself by accepting money from others by offering her person on hire. What is therefore required to be shown is whether she was carrying on prostitution in her premises in the sense that she was offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire whether in money or in kind.

( 2 ) AN emphasis was laid on the word carrying on prostitution in sec. 7 and the term promiscuous used in definition of prostitution under sec. 2 clause 6 of the Act. The effect of the use of these words is said to require that there must be such offer of her body on hire on acceptance of money or so more frequent and that a simple act such as the one alleged in this case cannot be enough to say that she was carrying on prostitution as required under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. The term promiscuous is not defined or explained in this Act. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary the term promiscuous has been explained as. 1 Consisting of members or elements of different kinds massed together without order; of mixed and disorderly composition or character; also of various kinds mixed together b. Rarely of a single thing. 2. That is without discrimination or method confusedly mingled indiscriminate. b. of an agent or agency; Making no distinctions undiscriminating 3. Casual carelessly irregular. The word promiscuous in the context that it is used under sec. 2 clause 6 of the Act would imply ordinarily speaking as indiscriminate employment of the womans body for hire. This term came to be explained in an unreport