Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a criminal prosecution under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. The appellant, Krishnamurthy @ Tailor Krishnan, was convicted by the III Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, under Section 4(1) of the Act, although he had been charged with an offence under Section 3(1). The State Government appealed against his acquittal under Section 3(1), and the High Court of Madras dismissed the appellant's appeal but allowed the State's appeal, altering the conviction to Section 3(1) and enhancing the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 on the ground that the appellant was a second offender. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that on August 22, 1962, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), P.W.4, received information that the house occupied by the appellant was being used as a brothel with three girls, Saroja, Ambika, and Lakshmi. He deputed Shanmugham, P.W.2, as a decoy and gave him three marked ten-rupee currency notes. The decoy went to the appellant's place, was shown the three girls, selected Ambika, and paid Rs. 30 in the marked notes to the appellant. The decoy and Ambika then went inside a room. The police party raided the house and found the decoy and Ambika in a dishevelled condition. P.W.4 recovered the marked currency notes from the possession of the appellant. The main question in the appeal was whether the facts found made out the offence under Section 3(1) of the Act, which punishes any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel. The term 'brothel' is defined in clause (a) of Section 2 to include any house, room, or place used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes. The Court held that the appellant's house was being used as a brothel because the girls were offered for prostitution, and the house was used for the gain of the appellant, who pocketed the money. It could be presumed that the girls would also obtain monetary gain. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that a solitary instance of use for prostitution could not establish that the house was kept as a brothel. It observed that a single instance coupled with surrounding circumstances—such as prior information, free access, selection of girls, payment to the keeper, and dishevelled condition—was sufficient to establish both that the place was being used as a brothel and that the person was keeping it. Evidence of repeated visits was not necessary. The Court therefore held that the conviction under Section 3(1) was correct. The second question was whether the appellant's previous conviction under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of the Madras Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1930, could be treated as a first conviction under the 1956 Act for the purpose of enhanced punishment. The appellant contended that it was not a conviction under the 1956 Act. The Court referred to Section 25 of the Act. Under Section 25(1), when the Act came into force in 1956, all State Acts relating to suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls stood repealed. Under Section 25(2), anything done or any action taken under the repealed State Act, to the extent not inconsistent with the new Act, is deemed to have been done or taken under the new Act. Since Section 5(1) of the Madras Act corresponded to an offence under Section 3(1) of the 1956 Act, the previous conviction was deemed to be a conviction under Section 3(1) of the 1956 Act. Consequently, the present conviction was a second conviction, and the appellant was liable to the enhanced punishment prescribed for a second or subsequent conviction. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's order altering the conviction to Section 3(1) and the enhanced sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Brothel Keeping - Definition of Brothel and Offence Under Section 3(1) - Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956), Section 2(a), Section 3(1) - The appellant's house was used for prostitution with girls offered for selection; the appellant pocketed the marked currency notes paid for prostitution. It was held that one is guilty under Section 3(1) if he keeps, manages, or assists in keeping a brothel, and the facts established that the appellant was keeping a brothel. Held that conviction under Section 3(1) was correct. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Law - Proof of Brothel Keeping - Single Instance Sufficiency - Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956), Section 3(1) - The appellant argued that a solitary instance of using the house for prostitution was insufficient to prove it was kept as a brothel. The Court held that a single instance coupled with surrounding circumstances, such as prior information that the house was being used as a brothel, free selection of girls, payment to the keeper, and the dishevelled condition of the decoy and girl, was sufficient to establish both that the place was used as a brothel and that the person was keeping it. Held that evidence of repeated visits was not necessary. (Paras 1-4) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Previous Conviction under Repealed State Act Deemed Conviction under Central Act - Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956), Section 25(1), Section 25(2); Madras Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1930 (Act 5 of 1930), Section 5(1), Section 8(1) - The appellant had a previous conviction under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of the Madras Act in 1955, and argued that it was not a conviction under the 1956 Act. The Court held that when the 1956 Act came into force, the corresponding provisions of the Madras Act stood repealed by Section 25(1), and by Section 25(2) the previous conviction was deemed to be a conviction under Section 3(1) of the 1956 Act. Held that the present conviction was a second conviction, justifying enhanced punishment. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the facts made out an offence under Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, particularly whether a single instance of use for prostitution was sufficient to establish that the house was kept as a brothel; Whether the appellant's previous conviction under the Madras Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1930 could be treated as a first conviction under the 1956 Act for the purpose of enhanced punishment as a second offender.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction under Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 was correct and that the previous conviction under the Madras Act was deemed to be a conviction under the 1956 Act, making the present conviction a second conviction. The enhanced sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 imposed by the High Court was upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Definition of brothel under Section 2(a)
- Offence under Section 3(1) if person keeps
- manages
- or assists in keeping a brothel
- Single instance coupled with surrounding circumstances sufficient to establish brothel and keeping
- Previous conviction under corresponding repealed State Act deemed conviction under Central Act by Section 25(2)
- Enhanced punishment as second offender
