Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mahesh Panjabrao Andhale, filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 09/02/2021 passed by the trial court rejecting his discharge application in Special Case Child Protection No. 82/2019. The case arose from FIR No. 347 of 2018 registered at Faraskhana Police Station, Pune, against six accused persons for offences under sections 188, 376, 344, 366B, 370A(2), 372, 373 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act). Later, offences under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and sections 3 and 6 of the Foreigners Order, 1998 were added. The prosecution alleged that the premises belonging to the applicant were used as a brothel. The applicant had let out the flat to accused Biren under a registered leave and license agreement dated 20/06/2018. Biren occupied the flat with his wife (accused No.1) and minor son. It was alleged that a 16-year-old victim girl was trafficked from Bangladesh and forced into prostitution in the flat. The applicant filed a discharge application contending that he had no knowledge of the alleged illegal activities. The trial court rejected the discharge application. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that there was no prima facie material to show that the applicant had knowledge that the premises were used as a brothel. The court noted that the applicant had let out the flat on leave and license basis and there was no evidence of his involvement or knowledge. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the applicant from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 Cr.P.C. - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant under Section 3 of the PITA Act. Held that in the absence of any material to show that the applicant had knowledge that the premises were used as a brothel, the applicant is entitled to discharge. (Paras 1-10) B) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 3 - Keeping a Brothel - Knowledge Requirement - The applicant had let out the flat on leave and license basis to accused Biren. There was no evidence that the applicant knew or had reason to believe that the premises would be used as a brothel. Held that mere ownership of premises used as a brothel does not attract Section 3 without knowledge. (Paras 4-10) C) Criminal Revision - Scope - Interference with Discharge Order - The revisional court can interfere if the trial court's order rejecting discharge is perverse or based on no material. Held that the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application as there was no prima facie case against the applicant. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to discharge in the absence of prima facie material to show that he had knowledge that the premises let out by him were used as a brothel.
Final Decision
Revision Application allowed. Order dated 09/02/2021 passed by the trial court rejecting the discharge application is set aside. The applicant is discharged from Special Case Child Protection No. 82/2019.
Law Points
- Discharge
- Prima facie case
- Knowledge
- Section 3 PITA Act
- Leave and license
- Brothel
- Criminal revision
