Brothel Customer Was Not Acting In Its Management: Calcutta High Court Quashes Immoral Trafficking Case Against Man
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man who was found in a "compromising position" at a brothel. Petitioner, was charged under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (in short Act of 1956).In quashing the case, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:From the record it appears that there is no material on record even after completion...
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man who was found in a "compromising position" at a brothel. Petitioner, was charged under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (in short Act of 1956).
In quashing the case, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
From the record it appears that there is no material on record even after completion of investigation, to demonstrate that the victim was procured or any attempt was made to procure the victim for the prostitution by the present petitioner/customer.
The allegation against the petitioner was that during a raid conducted on 8th December 2019 the petitioner was found in a compromising position with a woman in a brothel running under the guise of a 'family saloon and spa'.
After completion of the investigation police submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons including the petitioner under sections 3,4,5,7,18 of the Act of 1956.
Court noted that Section 3 of the Act of 1956 provides punishment for keeping or managing or acting or assisting in the keeping or management of a brothel.
Accordingly a petitioner who is admittedly a customer can hardly be said to be keeping or managing or acting or assisting in the keeping or management of the brothel house because materials in the case diary clearly reveals that he paid money to get a women to satisfy his lust and nothing more, it observed.
Court noted that there was no allegation against the petitioner to indicate that he indulged in sexual exploitation of abusing persons for commercial purpose in order to implicate him under Section 4 of the Act of 1956.
It also stated that visiting the brothel as a customer would not be tantamount to 'procuring' under the Act of 1956.
Public prosecutor on behalf of the State argued that since the word “procure” as used in section 5 has not been defined in the Act of 1956, therefore the word has to be understood in the context of the object of the statute which the legislature intends to achieve.
Referring to the object and reasons of the statute, the counsel contended that the object of the Act is to prevent commercialization of the vices and traffic among women and girls. Accordingly in its proper interpretation the word 'procure' is to be understood. Thus procurement implies the person, who gets or obtains domain over a person for the purpose of prostitution and in that view of the matter, a customer also comes within the purview of Section 5 of the Act.
However, the court noted that in the present case, the statements of the alleged victims, recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveal that all the aforesaid alleged victims have unequivocally stated before the Magistrate that they had joined in the profession voluntarily and to earn livelihood to maintain their children and no one had forced them to join in the profession nor any allegation have been made by them which may amount to exploitation or abuse for commercial purposes.
Accordingly, it was noted that in the present context, section 5 of the Act of 1956 also has no application against the present petitioner.
Thus, while ruling out the culpability of the petitioner as against all charges levelled against him under the 1956 Act, the court quashed the case.
Case: Debal Banerjee @ Debdal Banerjee @ Debdulal Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal
Case No: CRR 3306 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 240