In Re: Kamalammal and Another

Horwill, J.—The Magistrates of the Juvenile Court, Madras, passed an order u/s 6, Clause (2) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act

that the three girls found hi a house which was considered by the Police to be a brothel should be committed to the Rescue Home attached to the

Vigilance Association.

The Police searched a certain house and rescued these three girls and filed a case against the mother of two of the girls u/s 5 of the Act for

keeping a brothel. After enquiry, the Magistrate acquitted her as there was no evidence that that woman (Kamalammal) had been actually allowing

the house to be used for purposes of prostitution although there was evidence, which I do not think the Magistrate disbelieved, that two of the girls

were actually engaged in prostitution when the house was raided by the Police.

The only objection which can be raised to the order passed by the Magistrates is that it was not really passed u/s 6(2) at all, in that the search

made by the Inspector of the house in question was not made u/s 6(1). If the search had been made u/s 6(1), then the Magistrates would be

competent to pass an order u/s 6(2), even though in some independent proceedings, a Magistrate had found that the person accused of running a

brothel was not in fact doing so. It appears true that the warrant under which the Inspector made the raid of this house was issued - not u/s 6(1) -

but under Sections 13 and 14. It was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Madras, to the Inspector authorising him to enter into the premises of

No. 65, Elephant Gate Street, for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence punishable under Sections 9, 10, 11 or 12 of the said Act has

been or is being committed, whether any woman or girl is living therein in respect of whom an offence punishable under Sections 9, 10, 11 or 12 of

the Act has been committed and to arrest them u/s 13, in case he is satisfied that any of the offences punishable under the said sections had been

committed. The Commissioner of Police is also a Magistrate; and if the nature of the warrant issued indicated that the Commissioner was satisfied

that the girls under the age of 18 years had been carrying on business of prostitution in a brothel, then it might be argued that although the order

was issued u/s 13, it might be considered to be an order u/s 6(1) also. But it is clear from the order that the Commissioner of Police was not

satisfied that there were girls in the house under 18 years of age carrying on the business of prostitution. His order was merely one authorising an

Inspector to ascertain whether certain offences under the Act were being committed there. The order passed by the learned Magistrates of the

Juvenile Court was not therefore an order passed u/s 6(2) and has therefore to be set aside. This is unfortunate, as I have no doubt that the girls

would be better off where they are now than in the house of ill fame from which they have been taken.

The petitions are therefore allowed and the girls against whom the order has been passed by the Magistrates of the juvenile Court will be

released.