Keeping a brothel house has to be proved strictly.

Petitioner Suseela was convicted in C.C. No. 16734 of 1978 by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, for an offence under S. 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in woman and Girla Act, 1956, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months

2. Against her conviction and sentence, she filed an appeal, C.A. No. 498 of 1979 before the learned Sessions Judge, Madras, The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed

3. The instant revision case is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed against her by the lower appellate Court

4. The case against the petitioner was that on 25-10-1978 at about 12-30 p.m. she was running a brothel in the upstairs portion of Door No. 20, II Lane, Puliyur, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Madras, with the assistance of the other two accused girls, Manjula and Lakshmi. A2 Manjula carried on prostitution in the said premises and A-3 Lakshmi solicited the witness, Kumar, for prostitution in the said premises. The premises is situate at a distance of 50 yards from a Nursery and Tutorial School as well as Pillayar Temple. The trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under S. 3(1) of the said Act; against A.2 Manjula under S. 7(1) of the said Act and against A.3 Lakshmi under Section 8(a) of the same Act. All the three accused pleaded not guilty. During the course of the trial, Accused 2 and 3 had absconded, and hence the case against them was separated and the case against the petitioner alone was proceeded with

5. P.W. 6 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Vice Squad, Madras. On receiving information that the petitioner herein was running a brothel in the premises aforementioned, he verified the same by personally watching over the premises man also through his informants. He was satisfied that the premises was being used as a brothel. He arranged for a trap and raid. His Inspector arranged for a decoy witness Kumar P.W. 1 and two other witnesses, P.W. 2 and another. The witnesses were informed about the proposed trap and they were willing to assist P.W. 6 therein P.W. 6 prepared a mahazar in entrusting to P.W. 1 of a hundred rupee currency note M.O. 1 after initialling it. Ex. P. 2 is the mahazar attested by the witnesses. P.W. 1 was asked to proceed to the house in question to be pointed to him by a constable and thereafter meet the petitioner herein and arrange with her for providing a girl for prostitution. Accordingly P. W. 1 proceeded to the house and went upstairs where he was met by the petitioner. P.W. 1 told her the purpose of his visit and when asked how he chose that house and came there. The petitioner informed him that she was having two girls for prostitution and produced the two girls, Manjula and Lakshmi. Actually the petitioner offered herself for prostitution but P.W. 1 was not willing as she was aged. When Manjula and Lakshmi were produced for inspection, he chose Manjula and the petitioner demanded Rs. 100/-. P. W. 1 handed over M.O. 1 to the petitioner

6. Manjula took P.W. 1 to the adjacent bed room and the door was bolted from inside. P.W. 1 and Manjula undressed themselves and had sexual intercourse. Meanwhile, the constable who showed P.W. 1 the house returned to P.W. 6, and informed him that P.W. 1 had appeared to have succeeded in the mission. Thereupon, P.W. 6 prepared Exhibit P-5 incorporating his grounds for belief that the house in question is being used as a brothel and he therefore proposed to search the same. Then he proceeded to the house and found the petitioner seated in the entrance hall. Being questioned by P.W. 6 as to where P.W. 1 was, the petitioner pointed out the bed room. P.W. 6 knocked at the door. P.W. 1 opened it. P.W. 1 as well as Manjula were not properly clothed and the photographer accompanying P.W. 6 took photos of P.W. 1 and Manjula in that state