Harnam Singh and Asa Singh vs The State

J.S. Bedi, J.—Harnam Singh Petitioner aged 70 years, a Mahant of Bunga Sohal in Amritsar and Mst. Rattan Kaur wife of Dewan Singh aged about 40 years resident of Bunga Inder Kaur, Sarai Bazar, Amritsar, were sent up to be tried under Sections 3 and 4 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for running a brothel and for acting as a pimp for procuring Mst. Rattan Kaur for the purposes of prostitution.

The story for the prosecution is that on the 14th of June 1962 Puran Chand was proceeding towards Bunga Solanwala in Amritsar city to have sexual intercourse with Mst. Rattan Kaur. He had received information that she would be available to him on payment of Rs. 10/-. On the way he came across Mukhtiar Singh and at so a police constable in plain clothes. The police official took Puran Chand to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who also had similar information about the misconduct of Harnam Singh and Mst. Rattan Kaur. Puran Chand told him the purpose of his visit and produced a ten rupee currency note before the Deputy Superintendent of Police which he had to pay to Harnam Singh in order to have sexual intercourse with Mst. Rattan Kaur. The Deputy Superintendent of Police noted down the number of the currency note and returned the same to Puran Chand to go ahead with the deal. Puran Chand went towards the said Bunga and in the presence of Mukhtiar Singh passed the currency note to Harnam Singh whereupon Harnam Singh made Mst. Rattan Kaur available for intercourse to Puran Chand. He was still having intercourse with Mst. Rattan Kaur when the other members of the raiding party went in the room and surprised them. From the search of the person of Harnam Singh the currency note above-mentioned was recovered. On the above allegation Harnam Singh and Mst. Rattan Kaur were sent up for trial under the said Act. Mst. Rattan Kaur was acquitted but Harnam Singh was convicted u/s 4 of the said Act and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Harnam Singh went up in appeal which came up before Shri Brijinder Singh Sodhi, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the same side his order dated the 15th March 1963, against which this revision has arisen.

The Petitioner when examined denied the allegations against him and produced four witnesses in defence who stated that the Petitioner, in this case was a man of good character. The prosecution examined, in support of their case, Puran Chand P.W. 1, Panna Lal P.W. 2, Mukhtiar Singh P.W. 3, Tara Singh P.W. 4, Dewan Chand P.W. 5, Chuni Lal P.W. 6, besides Shri Sohau Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. who had investigated this case. Dewan Chand and Chuni Lal P.Ws. are formal witnesses. The fate of the case hinges mainly on the statements of Puran Chand, Panna Lal, Mukhtiar Singh and Tara Singh. The Petitioner''s counsel drew my attention to the statement of Puran Chand who in cross-examination admitted that he was married 10 or 12 years ago and occasionally indulged in prostitution. In this year also he committed sexual intercourse with Mst. Kesro and Mst. Sheela. He also stated that be was a P.W. in the case against Mst. Kesro and also against Mst. Sheela. He also admitted that about two years ago he was convicted in an Opium case. Similarly, while dealing with the evidence of Panna Lal, learned Counsel submitted that this witness does not belong to the locality and had been appearing in police cases. This witness submitted that he appeared as a P.W. in the case of Asha Rani under Immoral Traffic Act about 6 months back. This witness apears to a petty shop-keeper and lives at aboutj 1 or 11 mile from the place of occurrence. Mukhtiar Singh P.W. 3 has himself admitted in cross-examination that he had enjoyed Mst. Rattan Kaur after paying her Rs. 10/- through Harnam Singh. He then suggested to Puran Chand that if he liked he could negotiate for marriage with Mst. Rattan Kaur, and it was he who took Puranj Chand to the house of Harnam Singh. This witness, according to him, actually saw Puran Chand and Mst. Rattan Kaur going to the room for the purpose of sexual intercourse. He has admitted that his house is situated at about half a mile or so from the said Bunga. The last witness is Tara Singh who admitted in cross-examination that he occasionally joins the police raids and investigation for the last 2 years or so. From the evidence of these witnesses it appears that they are men of no character and are always ready at the beck and call of the police. Moreover the Petitioner''s counsel drew my attention to Section 15 of the said Act which lays down that before making a search under Sub-section (1) the special police officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search. In this case no woman, as required under this section, was made to join the raid. Nor is there any evidence that any of these witnesses resides in the, neighbourhood of the said locality, which according to the counsel was imperative. In support; of his contention he drew my attention to criminal Revn. No. 1048 of 1962 (Punj), Mst. Inder Kaur v. State. The facts in that case were also more or less similar in which the learned judge observed that "there was no answer to the contention that respectable of the locality had not been joined or that of the persons joined none was a woman." Piara Singh and Surrinder Kumar in that case, on their own showing, were habitual visitors to the alleged house of Mst. Inder Kaur an as according to the learned judge, were equally morally depraved. Similar observations were made by Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh in Mst. Panna Devi v. The State Cri Rev No. 1092 of 1962 (Punj) and also in Hazari Lal v. State Criminal Revn. No. 1017 of 1962 (Punj). The evidence which consists of the above-mentioned persons does not inspire confidence. The Petitioner who is an old man of 70 is a Mahant of Bunga. It is, therefore, not expected that in that old age he would indulge in such traffic. In any case the evidence produced in this case does not inspire confidence. Some of the witnesses on their own showing are under the thumb of police while the others have admitted their immorality.

For the reasons given above I feel that the prosecutions have failed to prove their case against the Petitioner. He is, therefore, given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.