JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated 18.9.1996 passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magis¬trate, Bhubaneswar, taking cognizance of the offences under Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. On 18.9.1995 the Inspector-in-charge of Bhubaneswar P.S. drew up a plain paper FIR stating that on the same day after receiving a reliable information with regard to prostitution at Sangam (Shiva) Lodge at Dhauli Junction, he conducted a raid with the assistance of other police officers and some local persons and during search three women were located in the ground floor concealing themselves under a bed. All the three women were within the age group of 18 to 26. During raid, five customers were apprehended including all the three petitioners. It is fur¬ther stated in the FIR that during raid the petitioners and the other two accused persons were trying to escape. On the basis of such allegations, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was submitted for offences committed under Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the given facts, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act are not at all attracted and therefore, the order taking cognizance under the said provisions is illegal. The learned counsel further submits that so far as Section 7 is concerned, no offence has also been made out on the admitted facts and therefore, the order taking cognizance under the said section is also not justified.

4. Before discussing the materials on record, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act prescribes that any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable in the manner indicated in the said section. Section 4 of the Act prescribes for punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 prescribes that any person who procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution or induces a person to go from any place for the purpose of prostitution or takes or attempts to take a person, or causes a person to be taken, from one place to anther for the purpose of prostitution, or causes or induces a person to carry on prostitution, shall be punished in the manner indicated in the section. Section 6 pre¬scribes that any person who detains any other person, whether with or without his consent, in any brothel, or in or upon any premises with intent that such person may have sexual intercourse with a person who is not the spouse of such person shall be punished in the manner indicated in the section.

5. The facts giving rise to this case, as is evident from the FIR as well as the statements recorded during investigation, is that a raid was conducted in the aforesaid hotel on 18.9.1995 and during raid, three girls were found concealing themselves under a bed in the ground floor of the hotel. The petitioners and two others were apprehended while trying to escape. The undergar¬ments of the petitioners were seized and sent for examination. The report of the District Forensic Science Laboratory, Khurda, indicates that the said undergarments sent for examination did not contain any semen stain. From these facts I am of the view that offences so far as Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned are not at all attracted.

So far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it prescribes that any person who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on, in any premises which are within the area or areas notified under Sub-sec. (3), or which are within a distance of two hundred metres of any place of public religious worship, educational institution, hostel, hospi¬tal, nursing home or such other public place of any kind as may be notified in this behalf by