The court ruled that insufficient evidence exists to proceed against the accused under the relevant sections of law, particularly due to the absence of the victim's statement.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2. The order dated 25/8/2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, District Thane below application Exhibit 9 rejecting the application for discharge by the present applicant- accused no.5 is under challenge. The applicant had approached the trial Court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to discharge him in connection with Sessions Case No.24/2015 arising out of C.R. No.II 56/2014 registered with Manpada Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code and 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral TrafÏc (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereafter ‘PITA’ for short)

3. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 29/10/2014. It is alleged in the FIR that on 28/10/2014, at about 8.15 p.m., the police raided ‘Ruchi Lodging and Boarding Hotel’ run by co-accused. It is alleged that prostitution activities were being carried out in the hotel. At the time of raid, the applicant was found in a room with the victim which according to the prosecution constitutes the offence under the aforesaid sections.

4. The applicant is the accused no.5. The applicant is alleged to be the customer who was found with the victim. The application for discharge is rejected by the trial Court for the following reasons:-

“6. It is settled position of law that while deciding application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufÏcient ground to proceed against the accused. In other words, the sufÏciency of ground would take within its fold, the nature of evidence recorded by police or the documents produced before the court which ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the applicant-accused so as to frame the charge against him.

7. Perused application, say and record. It appears that there are specific allegations against the applicant-accused about his involvement in the commission of crime. The charge-sheet has been filed by Investigating OfÏcer after due investigation against the applicant-accused and other co- accused. At this stage, truth and veracity of prosecution evidence, proposes to be adduced cannot be meticulously judged. The prosecution cannot be deprived of its right to prove its case against the applicant-accused as charge sheet has been filed by the investigating ofÏcer after due investigation against him. It is not safe, at this stage to deprive the prosecution, in proving its case, on basis of, in- spite of direct evidence. The aspect of intention of applicant- accused in committing the alleged offence can be looked into, at the time of full-fledged trial of the case. Under such circumstances, facts of case law and facts of case in hand are different, hence all respect, cited case law is not helpful to applicant-accused. Considering the over all aspect of the case, this court is of view that applicant-accused has not made out case to discharge him from the crime.”

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant is a customer. Learned APP submitted that the concerned police ofÏcials of the raiding party have clearly stated that when the raid was conducted, the applicant was found in one of the rooms with a woman who is named in the panchanama. It is submitted that the victim has clearly stated to the police ofÏcials that she is indulging in activities which constitutes an offence under PITA as per the instructions of the co-accused and from the remuneration received, some part of it is retained by the owner of the lodge as a commission. Learned APP submitted that the victim was found with cash of Rs.250/-.

7. The FIR is of the year 2014. On the earlier occasion, this Court had granted time to the respondent to find out whether the statement of the victim was recorded and what are t