Free interpretation is required to be resorted to.

One of the four accused in C.C.No. 34 of 1972 on the file of the District Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam, charged for an offence punishable under section 5 (1) (a) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has filed this revision against the order framing charge against him.

2. The petitioner and the other accused are Government servants. The accusation against him is that on 14th December, 1970 he along with the three other accused took one Santhamma from Thodupuzha to the Woodlands Hotel at Wellingdon Island for the purpose of ‘prostitution’. It is said that room Nos. 43 and 46 in the hotel were reserved in the name of one of the accused by name Madhavan Nair. On a perusal of the papers under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned District Magistrate found a prima facie case and framed charge.

3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the only material available in this case to frame charge is the statement of the woman, Santhamma. According to him, her statement by itself will not be sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offence. I am extracting below the important ground mentioned in the petition:

“To bring out an offence under section 5 (1) the accused should procure the girl for not his use but for the use of others. This is also absent in the charge. There is no evidence to bring out the elements of prostitution which is also a necessary ingredient of the section”.

4. For a proper understanding of the points involved, I am extracting below section 5 (1) of the Act:

“(1) Any person who-

(a) procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl, whether with or without her consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or

(b) induces a woman or girl to go from any place, with the intent that she may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or

(c) takes or attempts to take a woman or girl, or causes a woman or girl to be taken, from one place to another with a view to her carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or

(d) causes or induces a Woman or girl to carry on prostitution;

shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than two years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.”

The statement of the woman is that she was taken from her residence to the “Woodlands Hotel” at Wellingdon Island. She is married and has two children. Her husband deserted her and therefore she was forced to live in prostitution. When the police went to the hotel, one of the accused, Madhavan Nair, was seen with the woman in one room and the other accused including the petitioner were in the adjoining room. The accused Madhavan Nair and the Woman were found in a compromising situation and it is said that the woman had on her person an amount of Rs. 35.

5. The fact that the lady was taken for ‘prostitution’ cannot be disputed at this stage. There were four persons in all. She lives in prostitution and she went there to offer her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire. The only other question which survives for consideration is whether the woman was procured for prostitution; the contention being that the word ‘procure’ connotes that somebody other than the accused should procure her for them. Section 5 (1) (a) of the Act can be invoked only against a procurer like a pimp and not against persons like the petitioner in this case who took her for his own sexual purpose. It is therefore necessary to consider the actual scope of the word ‘procure’ for this purpose.

6. The word ‘procure’ has different shades of meaning. In the Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, at page 733, the following meanings are given:

“To obtain for one’s self or for another; to bring about; to attract; to urge earnestly; to pander, pimp”.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Fourth Edition, at page 956, the meanings