Confession by woman about sexual intercourse proved prostitution.

The accused in C.C. 397/89 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.

2. Short facts are : The respondent has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'SIT Act') and under section 353 I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows :

On 21-10-1987, A1 to A4 procured A7 for the purpose of prostitution and brought her to Room No. 7 of the Circuit House for prostitution, after paying Rs. 1,000/- to A7, A5 and A6, who are employees of the Circuit House, allowed the other accused for the said purpose. At about 7.00 p.m., the police party searched the above room, when A5 and A6 were found to be watching, from outside the room. It was found that A1 was having sexual intercourse with A7, at that time. There was some whisky in a bottle in the room. A2 to A4 where found to be holding glass tumbler, containing liquor. Further A1 to A4 were found to have consumed liquor. None of them have licence to possess or consume liquor. When the police party were about to arrest the accused, A4 obstructed them in the discharge of their duties. Hence the charge-sheet.

3. Mr. A Balaguru, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, whould submit that the allegations made in the charge-sheet do not make out a case of "prostitution" and so none of the offences under SIT Act are made out. He would further submit that the allegations do not make out a case of "procuring" any person for the purpose of prostitution and on that ground the offence under section 5(1)(a) of SIT Act cannot be sustained. He would further submit that they are not liable to be punished for offence under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, as the permit system under Section 20 of the Act has now been repealed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, making consumption and possession for personal consumption not an offence. He would further submit that the evidence regarding offence under Section 353 I.P.C. is not acceptable. I have heard Mr. E. Raja, the learned Government Advocate, on the above aspects.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. I shall first take up the offence punishable under SIT Act. Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act reads as follows :

"5. Procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution. - (1) Any peson who -

(a) procures or attempts to procure a (person) whether with of without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution;"

Section 7(1)(a) of SIT Act reads as follows :

"7. Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. - (1) Any person, who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on, in any premises -

(a) which are within the area or areas, notified under sub-section (3)."

Section 7(2)(a) of SIT Act reads as follows :

"Any person who - (a) being the keeper of any public place knowingly permits prostitutes for purposes of their trade to resort to or remain in such place."

The word "prostitution" occurs in all the above offences. "Prostitution" is defined in Section 2(f) of SIT Act and it reads as follows :

"Prostitution" means the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes and the expression "prostitute" shall be construed accordingly".

The definition "prostitution" would show that it means sexual exploitation for commercial purposes.

5. Now I shall proceed to consider the evidence in this regard. Govindan, Sub-Inspector of Police, is the first witness, for the prosecution. He has stated that on 21-10-1987, in Door No. 7 in the Circuit House at Palayamkottai, he heard laughter and other sounds and that he enquired Karuppiah and Nainar (A5 and A6) and they said that accused 1 or 4 have