Shally vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 15th of November, 1991, whereby the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak dated 1st of October, 1991, for sending the petitioner and Rajni petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 789 of 1991 in protective home known as Sewa Sadan at Faridabad, for a period of three years, was modified to the extent that the period for which the petitioner in each case was to be kept in protective home was reduced from 3 years to two years. As common questions of law and facts are involved, both these revision petitions shall be disposed of by one order.

In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 8th September, 1991 police party headed by DSP Ram Kumar on receipt of information organised a raiding party in which Randhir Singh and Khushi Ram were also associated. The said police party raided the house of Varinder situated in Sector 1, HUDA, Rohtak, against whom the information was that he had brought two prostitutes from Delhi and was keeping them in the said house for use as prostitutes at higher rate. 5-6 persons were present there along with the petitioners namely Shally and Rajni. Both the petitioners were partly naked and had exposed their organs. Two other male partly naked were also present and were touching the organs of the women. The raiding party entered the house after breaking open the door. The petitioners were asked to clothes themselves and they along with other persons including Varinder were secured. All the accused were produced before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, who held enquiry as required in Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate called for the report of the District Probation Officer; constituted a five member panel; recorded the statements of the two petitioners, as well as of their alleged husbands, and, thereafter passed the impugned order directing the aforesaid two petitioners to be kept in Protective Home at Faridabad.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioners it was mainly contended that both the petitioners are married women and were not carrying on prostitution for the benefit of another person, or in collusion with another prostitute, and, as such no action against the petitioners could be taken u/s 17 of the Act. It was further contended that in the absence of clear finding of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate that the petitioners were carrying on prostitution for pleasure near a public place and for seducing or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, no action could be taken against them u/s 17 of the Act and they cannot be sent to the Protective Home. The argument advanced is devoid of any merit. In the instant case, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate gave adequate opportunity to the petitioners; recorded their statements and those of their alleged husbands namely Billu and Rakesh Kumar and then passed the impugned order. Both the Courts below after duly considering the record gave a specific finding that both the petitioners were unmarried and reside at Delhi, were brought to the house of Varinder at Rohtak from Delhi, which was used as a brothel, for the purpose of prostitution for his gain, which is based on legal and cogent basis and cannot be set aside. The impugned order whereby both the petitioners were directed to be kept in Protective Home is perfectly legal and valid and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary as referred to above, is hardly tenable in view of facts and circumstances of the present case.

The authority relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in Smt. Ram Devi, v. State 1963 ALJ 894, does not in any manner help the case of the petitioners in as much as neither the Magistrate in that particular case held any enquiry, nor, appointed any panel as contemplated u/s 17(2) of the Act. The Magistrate in the said case had only given the finding that Smt. Ram Devi was carrying on prostitution and not she was carrying on prostitution in brothel or in her doing so some offence under the Act was committed. On this basis it was observed that the Magistrate had acted in excess of his jurisdiction and his order for keeping Smt. Ram Devi in Protective Home was set aside. The above said authority is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and is clearly distinguishable.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders, passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity or from excessive exercise, or, non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in them. Both these petitions are without any merit and the same are hereby dismissed.