JUDGMENT :

For the purposes to meet out the gravamen of arguments as it has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, and the judgments, which he has relied upon, to oust the engagement of the present applicant from commission of offence under Sections 3 , 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called as “the Act of 1956”), and for the offence under Section 3 70 of IPC, as it was registered against him, by way of an FIR No. 143 of 2023 on 13.03.2023, before Police Station, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which consequently upon the culmination of investigation had resulted into submission of the Chargesheet, being Chargesheet No. 228 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023, on account of which, the present applicant has been summoned to be tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in a Criminal Case No. 1191 of 2023, State Vs. Deep Mala and others .

2. In order to summarize the arguments, as it has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant:-

First contention is that, as far as the provisions as contained under Sections 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Act of 1956 are concerned, a customer who is even apparently engaged in augmenting an act of prostitution, will not be covered by it.

Secondly, he submits that in the light of the provisions as contained under sub Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act, with regard to conduct of an activity, would be depending upon the area, upon being notified in the official Gazette, until and unless the said area has been specified to be notified, where no prostitution could be under law conducted, no offence under Sections 3 , 4, 5, 6 of the Act, could be made out as against the present applicant.

Thirdly, he submits, that even if the language of Section 370 of IPC is taken into consideration, where it prohibits the trafficking of a person, since it classifies the activities contained therein i.e. exploitation, recruits, transports, harbors, transfers or “e-receives a person or persons”.

Fourthly, he submits, that none of the elements prescribed in the aforesaid classifications, as provided under Section 370 of IPC, would be made out as against the present applicant, for the purposes to be tried for the offences as narrated above.

3. Before dealing with the respective contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, the basic social objective of the Act of 1956, becomes inevitable to be considered by this Court as to what was the actual legislative reason, which necessitated the legislature to promulgate the Act of 1956, for the purposes of regulating the conditions, under which the prohibition is to be imposed upon an act of prostitution and for the said purpose, before referring to the statement, object and reason, which basically aimed at to inhibit and/or abolish commercialized acts of prostitution in trafficking of persons, for the purposes of prostitution as in an organized means of living.

5. The basic object of the Act, which it intends to meet out the aforesaid objective, has been culled out by its provisions contained under Sections 7 & 8 of the Act. A prostitution, in or in the vicinity of certain public places or in places of religious worships, educational institutions or hospitals, have had to be strictly prohibited and for that purpose, the implications of Section 7 (3) of the Act, has been attempted to be argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that since there was no Gazette notification with regard to the area or place where the offence was committed, since being excluded