Rai Saheb Mahadeo Prasad vs Emperor

Nasim Ali, J.—This is an application in revision against the conviction of the Petitioner under sec. 6 (5) of the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1933 (Act VI of 1933). The Petitioner is the owner of the house in question. He let out the house to one Shaikh Nasir. A notice was served by him upon the said tenant to vacate the land on the 4th September, 1934, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. After the service of that notice an order was passed upon the Petitioner as well as on one Derby Bibi, the sub-lessee of Shaikh Nasir, under cl. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act. Derby Bibi did not vacate the house till the 29th October, 1934. In the meantime the Civil Courts closed for the Puja Vacation. The present prosecution was started on the 8th November, 1934. In view of these facts it is very difficult to say that the Petitioner allowed the house to be used as a brothel after the service of the order under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6, inasmuch as it was not possible for the Petitioner to eject Derby Bibi without having recourse to law after the notice served on Shaikh Nasir expired by the end of September. As Derby Bibi refused to vacate the house in spite of the service of the order under sec. 6 (2), upon her, the only course left to the Petitioner was to go to the Civil Court to eject his lessee as well as the sub-lessee. The facts and circumstances disclosed in the case do not justify the conviction of the Petitioner under sec. 6 (5). The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The conviction of the Petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if realised, must be refunded.