Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. There is no ground for dissent from the conclusion of the Magistrate that the house in question was a brothel and it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2 that the second petitioner the lessee was keeping the brothel and living on the prostitution of the women found there on the night of the raid. He would therefore be guilty under Sections 5(1) and 8-A(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act but the first petitioner who is his sister was being used for prostitution and there is no evidence that she was jointly keeping or managing or acting or assisting in the management of the brothel. She cannot therefore be convicted under Section 5(1) of the Act and as rightly conceded it cannot be said that she was living on the earnings of the prostitution of another person. Her conviction under Section 8-A(1) of the Act is also unsustainable and she is entitled to an acquittal. The conviction and sentence of the first petitioner are therefore set aside and she is acquitted.

2. The conviction of the second petitioner is confirmed but this is his first offence, and the sentence is rather excessive. The sentence is therefore reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three