( 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 n