Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Jindal, J.
Renu Bansal
Versus
U.T.Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No. 1804 of 2001,
Decided On : APRIL 29, 2009
(B) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, S.2(f), 4, 5 & 6--Word "Prostitution"--Meaning of--Three ladies were sitting in car, whereas tout standing outside--He received a sum of Rs.1000/- from the decoy customer, later on that money was recovered from ladies--There is no such evidence that the ladies came out of car intending to go with the decoy customer or that they offered their body for sexual intercourse to him--The allegations is only that as soon as decoy customer handed over money to Tout, raid was conducted and money was recovered from ladies--Therefore, no ingredients appear to have been completed in order to record observations that either Tout was living on the earning of the prostitution or he was habitually in their company; he handed over the ladies for sexual intercourse to decoy customer, he was acting as a tout or pimp between the ladies and decoy customer or that the ladies were the prostitutes as defined under S.2(f) of the Act. (P.20)
(C) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, S. 8 & 4--Offence under S.8 of the Act--It is not the case of chance detection--No evidence that ladies were offered to decoy customer--Mere acceptance of money by tout or pimp from decoy customer and in the absence of other evidence of any other overt act loading to sexual intercourse, merely handing over the money to ladies--Is hardly sufficient to prove that the money was received on behalf of ladies by him purpose of prostitution, much less for the purpose of sexual intercourse with those ladies of offering them for prosecution--Held, as a matter of fact, since the three ladies sitting in car are not covered with the definition of "prostitutes" the offence of acting as a tout or pimp as provided under S.4 of the Act is not established. (P.21)
(D) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, S.2(f), 4, 5 & 6--Prostitution--When the ladies are not proved to be prostitutes having been found in the houses of decoy and they even did not come out of the car or did not act towards sexual intercourse, they did not even show their intention to move with the decoy customer then to attract or endeavour to attract the customers by the ladies by making gestures also can not be said to be proved particularly when no such part of the body was shown or offered by them to the decoy customer.
(E) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, S.2(f), 4, 5 & 6--Prostitution--Tout or pimp--In the absence of any overt act committed by the Tout regarding handing over the ladies to the decoy customer, he cannot be termed as pimp or tout.
(F) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, S.2(f), 4, 5 & 6--Prostitution--To convict a person for carrying on prostitution, there must be indiscriminate sexually requiring more than one customer of the prostitute, but in a given case cited where there are circumstances which would legitimately lead to the inference that the person concerned has been indulging in a sexual intercourse for money indiscriminately, a conviction can well be sustained on such evidence.
1. This judgment shall dispose of three connected criminal revision petitions bearing No.1802 of 2001 filed by Rekha; no.1803 of 2001 filed by Deepak Chauhan and No.1804 of 2001 filed by Renu Bansal, all accused petitioners (herein referred as petitioners) having arisen out of the judgment dated 24-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
2. All the three petitioners were convicted under Sections 4.5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 , (herein referred as the Act) vide judgment dated 18-12-1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and sentenced as under :-
Renu Bansal and Rekha under S.8 of the Act : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. Deepak Chauhan under S.4 of the Act : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. under S.5 of the Act : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2.000/-.
3 However, accused Puja Chauhan was acquitted of the charges framed against her.
4. Their appeals were dismissed vide judgment dated 21-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, chandigarh.
5. The brief resume of facts is that on 4-11-1996. DSP Surjit Singh along with asi Rajinderpal and ASI Jagat Ram was present near small chowk of Sector 40-41, chandigarh, where Inspector Mani Ram joined them. In the meantime, DSP Surjit singh received a secret information to the effect that Deepak Chauhan and his wife Puja were indulging in the business of flesh trade in Chandigarh and had been supplying women @ Rs.500/- per lady for the purpose of prostitution. He was further informed that they were standing near Government School sector 40-B, Chandigarh in red maruti car. in order to attract customers. Then. Chander parkash Gandhi was made a decoy customer; was handed over a sum of Rs.1000/- and sent to them at the place pointed by the informer. Accordingly, he contacted them and gave a signal to DSP Surjit Singh, who along with raiding party apprehended the petitioners. Renu Bansal and Rekha were sitting in the car along with Puja, whereas. Deepak chauhan was standing outside the car. On their search, marked currency notes were recovered from Puja Chauhan and also from rekha and Renu Bansal, which were bearing the initials of the Investigating Officer (DSP Surjit Singh ). The same were taken into possession vide recovery memo. The pager and the car were also taken into possession. The ruqa was sent, on the basis of which FIR was registered. The case was investigated and challan was presented in the Court.
6. The petitioner Deepak Chauhan and puja Chauhan (since acquitted) were charged for the offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the act, whereas, petitioner Renu Bansal and rekha were charged for the offence under section 8 of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
7. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined SI Balhar Singh (PW 1), Chander Parkash Gandhi (PW 2), ASI kulbir Kaur (PW 3) and DSP Surjit Singh (PW 4 ).
8. During their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the petitioners denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. Puja Chauhan further explained that she was a housewife and her parents were principals of the Schools. She had been involved on account of enmity of her husband with one Dimpi. She was whisked away along with her children so as Renu Bansal. Rekha and her husband involved in this false case. Renu Bansal also pleaded her false implication. Rekha also explained that she was suffering from ailment, therefore, she was referred to P. G. I. by Dr. (Mrs.) Maini with a letter to stay at the house of Puja chauhan. When they were proceeding towards PGI, police forcibly pulled her from inside the gypsy and took them to the Police station, where they were falsely implicated in the case. Deepak Chauhan took the same plea as was taken by his wife Puja Chauhan.
9. As many as six wit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
