Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Savitri @ Sumitra Narayan Gowda, was a tenant of two rooms in Mumbai for over 30 years. In March 2008, she gave the premises on leave and license to Kiran Naidu. On 16 December 2009, police raided the premises and found prostitution being carried out, rescuing 24 women and arresting Kiran Naidu, the petitioner, and Raju Gupta. A chargesheet was filed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act). The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7(1)(b) of the PITA Act and also ordered attachment of the premises under Section 18(2) for one year. The petitioner challenged the attachment order, contending that she was not given any notice under Section 18(1) of the PITA Act before the attachment, nor was she heard. The High Court examined the record and found that the notice under Section 18(1) was issued on 4 January 2011, but it was not served on the petitioner; it was only served on the licensees. The court held that the attachment order under Section 18(2) could not be passed without giving the petitioner, who was the tenant and owner of the premises, an opportunity of hearing. The court quashed the attachment order, set aside the sealing of the premises, and directed the respondents to hand over possession to the petitioner. The court also clarified that the conviction of the petitioner under the PITA Act was not challenged and remains unaffected.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 18(2) - Attachment of Premises - Notice and Hearing - The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the attachment of her premises under Section 18(2) of the PITA Act, 1956, on the ground that no notice under Section 18(1) was served upon her and she was not given an opportunity of hearing before the attachment order was passed. The Court held that the attachment order was passed without following the principles of natural justice and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause, and therefore the attachment was liable to be quashed. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of attachment of premises under Section 18(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is valid when the petitioner, a tenant, was not given notice or opportunity of hearing before the attachment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order of attachment of the premises under Section 18(2) of the PITA Act, set aside the sealing of the premises, and directed the respondents to hand over possession of the premises to the petitioner. The conviction of the petitioner under the PITA Act was not disturbed.
Law Points
- Attachment under Section 18(2) of PITA Act requires notice to the owner/tenant before sealing premises
- Opportunity of hearing is mandatory before passing attachment order
- Section 18(1) notice must be served on the person likely to be affected
- Attachment order cannot be passed without giving an opportunity to show cause
