SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 913

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Mathew, S/o. Jacob – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
For the Respondent: SRI.NOUSHAD K.A, PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles are as follows:

  1. Definition of Prostitution: The term “prostitution” is defined as the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for a commercial purpose. The term “prostitute” is to be construed accordingly (!) .

  2. Scope of Section 7 of the Act: Section 7 specifically pertains to prostitution in or near designated areas, which include notified areas, areas within a certain distance of public places such as religious worship, educational institutions, hospitals, or nursing homes, and other public places as notified by authorities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  3. Persons Covered Under Section 7: The section penalizes both the person who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on, within the specified areas. Notably, the section explicitly includes “the person with whom such prostitution is carried on,” which encompasses the customer, as part of the scope of the offence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  4. Inclusion of Customers: The legislative intent, as interpreted, indicates that the words “person with whom such prostitution is carried on” are meant to include customers or persons engaging in prostitution within the specified areas. The definition of prostitution as sexual exploitation or abuse further supports that the person exploiting or abusing the prostitute is also within the scope of the offence, implying that customers can be proceeded against criminally if other conditions of the section are satisfied (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  5. Limitations of Other Sections: Sections 3 and 4 of the Act pertain to maintaining or living on the earnings of a brothel and do not explicitly include or target customers. The scope of these sections is different, and they primarily address the owners or persons managing the premises (!) .

  6. Legislative Intent and Purpose: The primary purpose of the Act is to deter and prevent immoral traffic and exploitation. Including customers within the penal provisions aligns with the objective of the legislation to prevent immoral traffic and exploitation comprehensively (!) (!) (!) .

  7. Judicial Interpretation: The interpretation of the relevant provisions indicates that a customer involved in prostitution within a notified or specified area can be criminally proceeded against under the provisions of Section 7 if the other statutory conditions are met. The legislative language and purpose support including customers within the scope of the offence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal interpretation confirms that a person who is a customer in a brothel situated within the notified or specified areas can be prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, provided the conditions of the section are satisfied. The legislative intent and statutory language support the inclusion of customers as liable parties under section 7 of the Act.


ORDER :

Can a ‘customer’ in a brothel be proceeded against criminally under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act')? The above question requires to be answered in this petition filed by the alleged customer, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner faces an indictment as the third accused in C.C No. 1778 of 2007, on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleges that the first accused had taken a building situated 175 metres away from the Ravipuram Temple at Ernakulam, to conduct an Ayurvedic Hospital and under the cover of the ayurvedic hospital permitted the conduct of prostitution by appointing the second accused as the supervisor and accused Nos.4 and 5 for carrying on the prostitution. It was further alleged that on 15.12.2004 at 2.45 p.m., the Investigating Officer found the third accused engaged in a sexual act with accused Nos.4 and 5 after paying Rs.500/-and thus the accused committed the offences under sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Act.

3. Petitioner alleged that he had approached the Ayurvedic Hospital for treatment of his back pain

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top