In Re: Ammani Ammal

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The accused In C.C. No. 273 of 1978 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, it the petitioner in this revision.

She was convicted for offences under S. 3(1) and 6(1) or the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 104 of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. She has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under S. 3(l) of the Act and no separate sentence has been imposed for the offence under S. 6(l) of the Act. She preferred an appeal CA. No. S8 of 1979 before the Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur Da. Thanjavur, and the lower appellate Court found no warrant for interference and the conviction, and the sentence of the first Court were confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The present revision is directed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court.

The findings rendered by the two Courts below are mostly factual and the judgments rest on appreciation of evidence.

The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused was keeping and managing a brothel house in Bast Street, Thiruvidaimaruthur and P.W. 1 visited her house on 19th August, 1978 having heard that the accused was running a brothel house. The accused showed P.W. 1 three girls of whom P.W. 1 chose a girl by name Ambigai and for the bargain of permitting P.W.I to have sexual intercourse with the said girl Ambigai p.w. 1 was able to settle it for RS. 12, out of which the accused paid Rs. 5 to the girl Ambigai and appropriated RS. 7 for herself; and on the same day P.W. 5, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam, along with P.Ws. 2 and 3 searched the house of the accused and found P.W.I along with the girl Ambigai coming out of a closed room. The other two girls, by name, Vijaya and Vanaja, were also found in the said house. The sum of Rs. 12 given by P.W. I was recovered both from the girl Ambigai and from the accused and have been marked as M.O. I series, and M.O. 2. The accused in defence made an attempt to put forth a case that she is practicing Homeopathy and she Is also attending to abortion cases. In substantiation of this version, the accused examined three witnesses, D.Ws. l to 3. The evidence of D.Ws. is not of much help to the accused, because her practicing Homeopathy and her attending to abortion cases cannot militate against the prosecution case that she was in fact running a brothel house with the three girls mentioned above. I have been taken through the judgments of the two Courts below and I find that their reasoning are cogent and convincing P.W.I cannot be characterized as a decoy witness and he seems to have visited the house of the accused on the date in question for carnal pleasure and his needs had been catered to by the accused by providing him with the girl Ambigai in the said house. His evidence is natural and nothing has been elicited to Impeach his creditworthiness.

Mr. N. Sankaravadivela, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are not inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched was situate and hence there Is failure to comply with S. 15(2) of the Act, and this vitiates the trial of the case. There Is no dispute before me that P.Ws. 2 and 3 were not inhabitants of the locality and they belonged to Kumbakonam. Some aspersion has also been cast by the accused against P.W. 2, in the sense, that she was implicated in a case under the Act itself, though acquitted ultimately. These factors by themselves are not sufficient to hold that the trial of the case suffers an Illegality. It is true that satisfaction of S. 15 of the Act is a legitimate compliance required by It. But In all cases, where there has been an omission to strictly comply with the provisions of S. 13 of the Act, it cannot be said that the trial will suffer any legal infirmity. If, on account of non-compliance with the provisions of S. 15 of the Act, the accused is shown to have suffered prejudice, then there is a warrant for negative the prosecution case and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. The non-procuring of respectable inhabitants of the locality, within the meaning of S. 15(2) of the Act in the instant case cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused. The accused made a vain attempt to prove her case by examining D.Ws. 1 to 3 of the locality. The Supreme Court has recognised the principle that the noncompliance with the provisions of S. 15 of the Act is only an irregularity and on that ground the trial Court is not vitiated unless it is shown that prejudice is caused to the accused by such non-compliance. Vide Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat 1970 2 Cri. L.J. 1279. (S.C.).

Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out certain discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 3 and 5, in that P.W.3 has deposed that the information was received at Thiruvidaimaruthur police station while P.W. 5 has deposed that the information was received at Kumbakonam police station. This again cannot be characterized to be a material discrepancy so as to affect the veracity of the prosecution version.

No other point was urged before me. I do not find that this is a case where interference in revision is warranted. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed.