Back
1939 Supreme(Mad) 204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
In Re: Manonmani Ammal and Anr.
Versus
Decided On : 21.07.1939
Headnote:
Immoral Traffic Act - Brothel - Conviction of second petitioner confirmed, but first petitioner acquitted
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the house in question was a brothel, and the second petitioner was keeping the brothel and living on the prostitution of the women found there. The first petitioner, his sister, was being used for prostitution, but there was no evidence that she was jointly keeping or managing the brothel.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the conviction of the second petitioner under Sections 5(1) and 8-A(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, but acquitted the first petitioner as there was no evidence of her joint involvement in managing the brothel.
Issues: Conviction under Sections 5(1) and 8-A(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, involvement in managing the brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the second petitioner was guilty of keeping the brothel and living on the prostitution of the women, leading to his conviction. However, the first petitioner was acquitted due to lack of evidence of her joint involvement in managing the brothel or living on the earnings of prostitution.
Final Decision: The first petitioner was acquitted, and the second petitioner's sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months under each section to run concurrently.
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 months under each section to run concurrently, and otherwise his petition is dismissed.
