Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN
xxx – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of the petitioner as a customer in a brothel. (Para 1) |
| 2. defense argues inapplicability of certain charges against the petitioner. (Para 2) |
| 3. prosecution's arguments on evidence relating to brothel operations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. understanding and implications of penal provisions regarding prostitution. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's conclusion on liability of customers in prostitution. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.331 of 2021 registered at the Peroorkada Police Station for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(d) and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The crime was registered on the allegation that on 18.03.2021, based on reliable information that prostitution was going on in house bearing No.TC-21/755 in Kudappanakkunnu, the Inspector of Police along with his subordinate officers conducted search in that building and found the petitioner and a woman lying naked on a bed in one of the rooms. Another man and a lady was found in one of the other rooms and on questioning the women trying to hide inside the kitchen, it came to light that accused Nos.1 and 2 had procur
A customer in a brothel can be prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, as they induce the act of prostitution.
“Prostitution” means sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purpose, and expression “prostitute” shall be construed accordingly.”
A customer cannot be criminally liable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless actively involved in inducement or procurement.
A customer found in a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless involved in managing or facilitating prostitution.
The absence of evidence proving that victims were trafficked or exploited negates the applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC against customers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370 of the IPC do not apply to a customer in a brothel, and therefore, the cu....
The act of visiting a sex worker as a customer does not constitute an offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, according to established legal precedents.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of trafficking, but may be liable under Section 370(A)(2) IPC if they had reason to believe victims were tra....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
