Meaning of expression brothel.

These are related appeals from the judgment of the learned III Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C.C. No. 6640 of 1959 on his file. The learned Magistrate convicted one B.S. Babu (accused 1) and his sister Ratnamala (accused 3) under section 3 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (Central Act CIV of 1956), and sentenced each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one week.

Certain questions of considerable importance, both with regard to the implementation of certain provisions of this Act, and with regard to the entire technique adopted by the authorities in enforcing this piece of legislation, have arisen in these appeals. I propose to deal with them at some length, for they are certainly questions of importance to the citizen as well as the State. But, before doing so, I shall briefly set out the facts which the prosecution has claimed to have established by the evidence. I shall later advert to certain aspects of the testimony in greater detail, but a broad outline of the facts will be essential as an introduction to the questions actually argued before me.

The Assistant Commissioner of Police Vigilance (P.W.4) had information from an undisclosed source that the two appellants and their mother were keeping and maintaining a brothel in the upstair portion of No. 22, Poes Road, Teynampet. The landlady Gowri Ammal (P.W. 3) has been examined in the case, and she states that she lives in the ground floor with her family, and that the upstair portion has been divided into 3 tenements, one of which was occupied by the appellants. It is of some significance in this case that the daughter of P.W. 3 is a foster-child that she had another foster-child who was sent by the authorities to the Seva Sadan, Madras, and that P.W. 3 herself was fined Rs. 50 in a proceeding under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. Having received this information, P.W. 4 made certain enquiries and verified its truth. Later, on the evening of 9th October, 1959, he arranged for a trap with one G. Radhakrishnan (P.W. 1) as a decoy, and it is here sufficient to state that P.W. 1 is a Nursing Orderly in the Indian Medical Hospital, who probably had prior contacts with the police. P.W. 4 also arranged with one Mani (P.W. 2) and a lady to accompany him as Mahazar witnesses. In the presence of these witnesses, P.W. 4 entrusted four currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination each to P.W. 1, after noting the numbers. In pursuance of the plan, P.W. 1 went with an informant to the upstair portion of the house where the brothel was being carried on. Here they met B.S. Babu (accused 1) and the mother, acquitted in the case. The informant talked with both these persons, and it was arranged that P.W. 1 should pay Rs. 40 and have sexual intercourse with Ratnamala (accused 3). P.W. 1 actually paid Rs. 40 to the mother (second accused in the case) and she gave it to accused 1, who put it in a trunk. There was a bedroom behind a thatti partition, and this was arranged for the purpose of prostitution. The informant took P.W. 1 to this portion, and left him there.

Ratnamala (accused 3) was in the bedroom, and P.W. 1 states that himself and accused 3 then had sexual intercourse. Within a quarter hour or twenty minutes P.W. 4 (the Assistant Commissioner) came there along with Mani (P.W. 2). and the lady witness. P.W. 4 opened the thatti door, and saw P.W. 1 and Ratnamala (accused 3) lying together, in a state of almost total undress. Seeing the police party, the two got up and began arranging their clothes. Upon the demand of P.W. 4, the currency notes were taken out of the trunk by Babu (accused 1) and handed over. The numbers of these notes were verified with the numbers previously noted in a Mahazar (Exhibit P-1), and found to tally. The seizure list (Exhibit P-2) was prepared. The actual notes were marked during the trial as M.Os. 1 to 4. It is on the broad b