Nadimpalli Sai, Mahabubnagar ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 561 Tel

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 116 of 2015

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused

aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.483 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad confirming the order dated 14.05.2013 passed in

C.C.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 20.01.2013

at 9:30 PM, Detective Inspector of Police, S.R.Nagar Police received

credible information about one Sai, accused No.1 was running a

brothel house at H.No.A-68, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

Believing the said information, he informed the same to his superior

officer and obtained search warrant from the Assistant Commissioner

of Police, Panjagutta Division, secured the presence of panch

witnesses, T. Suresh and Mahaboob Pasha and drafted search

proceedings. The Detective Inspector along with his staff, two police

constables and a women constable proceeded to the said premises.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

He asked one of the police constables to act as a decoy witness and

sent him to the brothel house with instructions to give signal. After

getting signal from him, the Detective Inspector along with other staff

members and panch witnesses entered into the said premises and

found accused Nos. 1 and 2 and served search proceedings on

accused No.1. On checking bed rooms, he found accused No.3

customer along with a sex worker in one room and another sex

worker also in the said house. He took accused Nos.1 to 3 into

custody and recorded their confession statements and seized one

Samsung cell phone, cash of Rs.4,000/- and two condoms from the

possession of accused No.1, who was organizing the brothel and

seized one Nokia cell phone, cash of Rs.4,000/- and condoms from

the possession of accused No.2 and also seized one Nokia cellphone

and cash of Rs.1,000/- from the possession of customer - accused

No.3 under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the

presence of panch witnesses. He produced accused Nos.1 to 3 and

victim sex workers before the Inspector of Police and lodged a report.

Basing on the said report, the Inspector S. Prabhakar registered a case

in Crime No.45 of 2013 under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(d) and 7(1) of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). He Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

recorded the statements of Detective Inspector and the staff who

accompanied him, the statements of the victim sex workers, the

statement of house owner, effected the arrest of accused Nos. 1 to 3

and produced them before the Court. He sent the victims to Rescue

Home for their rehabilitation and after completion of investigation

filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was tried by the Special Judicial First Class

Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad. Charges were framed

against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Section

3,4,5(1)(d) of the Act and under Section 7(1) of the Act against the

accused No.3.

4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 to 8 on its

behalf. The accused failed to adduce any oral or documentary

evidence.

5. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court

found the accused guilty for the offences for which they were charged

and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default of payment of fine, each of them to undergo simple

imprisonment for (02) months for the offence under Section 3(2)(a)

of the Act. Simple imprisonment for a period of (06) months each for

the offence under Section 4 of the Act and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of (03) years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- by each accused, in default of payment of fine, each of

them to undergo simple imprisonment for (02) months for the offence

under Section 5 of the Act and directed all the sentences to run

concurrently. Accused No.3 was also convicted and sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for (03) months for the offence under

Section 7 of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence

recorded against him, accused No.1 preferred an appeal. The appeal

was heard by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad. Vide Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2013 dated 15.07.2014,

the lower appellant court dismissed the appeal confirming the

conviction and sentence recorded against accused No.1 in C.C.No.20

of 2013.

7. Aggrieved further, accused No.1 preferred this revision Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

contending that the courts below failed to see that the ingredients to

constitute the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(d) of the Act were

not made out. The courts below failed to see that PW4, the owner of

the premises did not support the prosecution case and was declared as

hostile. The courts below failed to see that the prosecution failed to

prove that accused No.1 took the house of PW4 on lease for running

brothel house. The courts below failed to see that in order to

constitute prostitution, proof of passing of consideration in money or

kind from male to female accused was necessary, which was not

proved in the present case. No independent witnesses were examined

at the scene of offence. The courts below ought to have rejected the

evidences of PWs.5 and 7 with regard to arrest and recovery. The

courts below erred in convicting the accused, basing on the evidence

of PWs.1 and 2 who were wholly unbelievable witnesses, who were

not even in a position to name the accused and prayed to allow the

revision by setting aside the judgment of the courts below.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to argue the

matter inspite of taking several adjournments. Hence this Court

proceeded to decide the matter on merits.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

9. The object of the provision of revision is to set right a patent

defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. It has to be a well- founded

error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the

orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful

consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. The revisional

jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are

grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law,

the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is

ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

The revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised in a

routine manner as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr.1.

10. On a perusal of the orders of the courts below, the trial court

considered the provisions of Sections 3(2)(a), 4 and 5 of the Act and

on considering the evidence on record that PWs.1 and 2, who were

the victim sex workers stated that they belonged to Kolkata and Tamil

Nadu respectively and PW.1 stated that her husband was addicted to

vices and was not doing any work, she was having one female child

(2012) 9 SCC 406.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

and to support that child, she left her husband. One Sania brought her

to Hyderabad from Kolkata to do house-hold work and took her to

accused No.1's house and accused No.1 offered her to do prostitution,

she accepted the proposal of accused No.1 and worked as sex worker

in his house. She stated that she found PW2, the other sex worker also

in the said house. She stated that she participated in sexual activities

with customers, accused No.3 was a customer and accused No.2 used

to collect money from the customers, while she was in the said house,

police raided on that house.

11. PW2 stated that her husband deserted her and she was

having two sons, accused No.1 brought her from Mumbai to

Hyderabad, while she was working as a tailor in Mumbai, to do

immoral activities and took her to his flat and in the said flat she

worked as a sex worker, accused No.1 offered attractive amount to

her and sent customers to her.

12. PW3 is the Detective Inspector, PW.6 is the decoy police

constable, PW.5 is the panch witness, who accompanied the police

and stated about the raid conducted by the police on the flat and

finding accused Nos.1 to 3 and victims sex workers at the said place Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

and that police seized cash of Rs.9,000/- and 2 cell phones under the

cover of panchanama. Thus all these witnesses supported the case of

the prosecution.

13. PWs.1 and 2 clearly stated about the role played by accused

No.1 in procuring them for the sake of prostitution and sending

customers to them and living on the said earnings and that he was

incharge of the flat. Their evidence would prove all the ingredients of

the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act against accused

No.1.

14. PW.4 is the owner of the house bearing No.A-68, Vengalrao

nagar, Hyderabad. He stated that he owned the said house and gave it

on lease to one Mr. Kiran and police raided the said house since

inmates were using it as brothel. He had not stated that he gave the

said house to accused No.1 on lease but that he gave it on rent to one

Mr. Kiran. The evidences of other witnesses, the sex workers,

official witnesses as well as the panch witnesses would prove the

presence of accused No.1 and the role played by him in the said

premises.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

15. The lower appellate court observed that as per Section 3 of

the Act, anyone who was in occupation of the premises and who was

not a owner or tenant was also still liable, if he was using the

premises for the purpose of sexual exploitation for commercial

purposes which would amount to using the premises as a brothel and

the failure of PW.4 to speak about anything else would not assist the

accused in any manner. This Court does not find any perversity in the

said finding of the courts below.

16. The trial court also considered the evidence of PW.7

investigating officer who categorically stated about the involvement

of accused No.1 in Crime No.436 of 2012 under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(d)

and 7(1) of the Act in Kukatpally Police Station, Crime No.952 of

2012 under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(d) and 7(1) of the Act of Panjagutta

Police Station and that he also trespassed into Ujwala Rehabilitation

home at Ramanthapur and took away the victim women, who were

kept in the said home for rehabilitation, for which a case in Crime

No.374 of 2012 was registered against him at Uppal Police Station

under Sections 448, 342, 506 of IPC and again the accused No.1

along with his associate kidnapped the victim women from Ujwala Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

Rehabilitation home, for which another case was registered against

him in Crime No.534 of 2012 under Sections 363, 448 and 342 of

IPC at Cyberabad Police Station.

14. The trial court observed that there was ample evidence

against the accused No.1 as he was procuring female persons from

various places like Bombay and also from Tamil Nadu and securing

the customers and was living on the earnings of prostitution by

engaging the female sex workers.

15. The lower appellate court also observed that the accused

persons failed to explain as to why they were in possession of

condoms and failed to account the source of income for the money

seized from them and the evidence of PW1 indicated that the money

came from customers to the accused as consideration for using the

bodies of PWs.1 and 2 for sex and that the accused failed to explain

his presence on the date at that house, if he was not connected with

the said house or the sex workers and considered that the guilt of the

accused was established beyond reasonable doubt.

16. Thus both the courts below have assessed the evidence of the Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

prosecution witnesses in detail and came to the conclusion about the

guilt of the accused. Hence, this Court does not consider that the

judgments of the courts below were perverse or the result of an abuse

of any process or the same were erroneous. The sentence inflicted

against the accused No.1 also appeared to be commensurate with the

complicity of the charges framed against him. Hence, this Court does

not find any necessity to interfere with the judgements of the courts

below.

17. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

confirming the judgments of the courts below in convicting and

sentencing the accused for the offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4 and 5

of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as stated above. The

revision petitioner/appellant is directed to be taken into custody

immediately by the Court below and to implement the sentence

accordingly.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J February 03, 2023 SS Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2015

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.116 of 2015

February 03, 2023

SS