Krishnamurthy @ Tailor Krishnan v. Public Prosecutor, Madras

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1964

Equivalent Citation

(1967) 1 SCR 586: AIR 1967 SC 567 : 1967 Cri LJ 544

Bench

Raghubar Dayal, V. Ramaswami, Vishishtha Bhargava,

Decided on

September 26, 1966

Relevant Act/ Section

Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act 104 of 1956),

s. 3(i)-Ingredients-Single instance, sufficiency-Conviction under Madras Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act-If previous conviction.

Brief Facts and Procedural History

On August 22, 1962, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) deputized Shanmugham as a decoy after receiving information that the appellant’s house was being used as a brothel with three girls, Saroja, Ambika, and Lakshmi. ACP presented Shanmugham with three marked 10 rupee cash notes. He was shown the three girls when he went to the appellant’s house. He chose Ambika and handed the appellant Rs 30 in those designated currency notes. After that, he and Ambika entered a room. Following that, the police party stormed the residence and discovered the fake Shanmugham and Ambika in that room, both disheveled. The marked cash notes were discovered from the appellant’s possession by ACP.

Issues before the Court

The main issue, in this case, is whether the facts revealed to prove the offense under Section 3(1) of the Act which states that “Any person who has or manages a brothel, or acts or supports in the keeping or running of a brothel, shall be punished on first conviction with hard imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years, as well as a fine of not less than two thousand rupees, and on next or following convictions with harsh imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years, as well as a fine of not less than two thousand rupees. The term “brothel” is defined in Section 2 clause (a).

Any house, room, or location, or any portion of a house, room, or place, utilized for prostitution for the benefit of another person or the mutual benefit of two or more prostitutes, is included. If a person commits any of the acts listed in that sub-section regarding a brothel, he will be charged under Section 3(1) of the Act. According to the evidence, the appellant’s home was being operated as a brothel. The girls were made available for prostitution. The house was used for such purposes, undoubtedly for the gain of the appellant who pocketed the money which was given by Shanmugham for committing prostitution on Ambika. Of course, it can be presumed that the girls who were being offered prostitution, would also obtain monetary gain out of the amount paid by Shanmugham. The appellant can therefore rightly be said to be “keeping a brothel”.

The decision of the Court

The Supreme Court stated that the circumstances surrounding the location and the person in control could only mean that the location was being used as a brothel and that the person in charge was keeping it that way. ‘It is not required that there should be evidence of recurrent visits by persons to the site for prostitution,’ the court added in dismissing the appeal. A single incident, when combined with the surrounding circumstances, is sufficient to prove both that the location was being used as a brothel and that the person accused was keeping it.

This case analysis is written Shrey Hasija.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES