CRLP/11109/2015 of A.Sheshgiri Rao Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA.,REP.,PP on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the judgment dated 2I.O9.2}lspassed in Crl.R.P.No.311 of 2013 in C.C.No.93 of 2Ol3 onthe f-rle of the learned II Additional Metropolitan SessionsJudge at Hyderabad and acquit the petitioner herein underSection 7 of Immoral Traffrc (Prevention) Act.the f-rle of the learned II Additional Metropolitan SessionsJudge at Hyderabad and acquit the petitioner herein underSection 7 of Immoral Traffrc (Prevention) Act.

2. Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for thepetitioner/ accused as well as learned Assistant publicProsecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused therecord

3. The brief facts of the case are that on i0.O2.2013 at16:00 hours a complaint has been received from LW-l,B.Jeevarathnam, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station,Chikkadapally, wherein he stated that on the same da_r, ar15:O0 hours u.hile he was on patrolling duty along',r,'ith staffon Rakshak mobile, when they reached street No.IO,Chikkadapall_v, received credible information that one \l,oman name Smt. [K.Jyothi ][w/o ][K'Raghubluy ][was ][mnnlng]by brothel house [in ][premises ][bearing ][No' 1-1- ][189/ ][19/B']Chikkadapally, [Hyderabad ][by ][procuring ][sex workers ][from]various [places ][and providing the ][customers ][at ][that ][premises]for the [purpose ][of ][prostitution ][and ][earning ][money' ][thereby]her [livelihood ][from ][those amounts ][and ][also ][causing]eking inconvenience [to ][the ][neighbours ][of ][same ][house' ][Therefore']he requested [to ][take action ][against ][her' ][On ][receipt ][of ][the]above report [of ][LW-l, ][LW-9 registered a ][case ][in ][Crime ][No'54]of2o|3underSections3,4arrd5(1)(a)oflmmoralTraflicAct [and took ][up investigation' ][After ][completion](Prevention) of investigation, [LW-9 P'sreedhar, lnspector ][of ][Police ][filed]sheet [against ][the ][accused ][Nos' ][1 ][and 2']charge

4. In support [of ][its ][case, ][the prosecution ][examined ][PWs' ][1]to 7 and [got ][marked ][Exs'Pl ][to ][P4 ][and ][also ][M'Os- ][I ][to ][4 ][were]got marked.

5 After appreciating [the ][oral and ][documentary ][evidence]onrecord,thelearnedMagistratehaspassedthefollowingorder in [C.C.No.93 of ][2013:]

.22. In the result, 42 is found guilty for offenceand he is conuicted under Section 2a8(2) Cr.P.C foroffence under Section 7 of Immoral Tralfic (Preuention)Act and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment fortLvee montLs. M.O.l-cash of Rs.3,OOO/-, M.O.2-oneNokia cell phone and M.O.4-Nokia cell are ord.ered to beconfiscated to State and M.O.3- Condom.s slnll bedestroged, afier expiry of appeal time. TLe remandperiod if ang, undergone bg the accused shall be set offunder Section 428 Cr.P.C".

Aggrieved by the said order, accused Nos.l and 2 fiedcriminal Appeal No.793 of 2013 and Crl.R.P.No.311 of 2Ol3before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge atHyderabad (for short 'the appellate Court). The appellateCourt afte r examining the material facts before it and uponconsidering the Judgment passed by the trial Court, hasdismissed the crimina-l Appeal No.793 of 2013 andCr[.R.P.No.311 of 20 13 by way of common order confirmingthe Judgment passed by the trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that lowerCourt failed to consider the following points while passingthe Judgment

1. Failed to observe that even assuming withoutadmitting, mere presence of petitioner/accused No.2 andmere having sexual intercourse by payrng money does notattract "prostitution" mentioned in Section 7 of the Act.

2. Failed to observe that when the sex worker is shownas LW2 and not made as accused and did not speak aboutthe petitioner, convicting on the ground of seizure andrecovery of some amount and mobile phone, would not leadto conclusion of indulging in sexual intercourse with womenby paying money and punishing the petitionerISunwarranted. Therefore, the Judgments are liable to be setaside 7 . On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutorappearing for respondent-State would submit that both thetrial Court and appellate Court after appreciating the oralald documentaql evidence and facts before it has passed theJudgments.

Recording the the submissions made by the by the learned

8. Recording the the submissions made by the by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State, this Courthowever is not convinced with the submissions made byAssistant Public Prosecutor. Having not charged thepetitioner under Section 370 IPC, the other Sections i.e.,Section 7 of Immoral Trafhc [(Prevention) ]Act, [which ][has ][been]taken cognizance by the trial Court shall not attract asagainst the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is a-llowed by settingaside the Judgments passed by the trial Court as well as theappellate Court Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand clo sed Sd/. T. VIJAY [KUMAR]ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION [OFFICER]

To,

1 . The Court [of ][Special Judicial First ][Class ][Magistrate ][at ][Hyderabad']

2. TheCourtofIlAdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudge,Hyderabad.

3. TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaatHyderabad [OUT]Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to [SRl. K ][.B. ][RAMANNA DORA, ][Advocate ][[OPUC]]

\

5. Two [CD ][CoPres ]'>Y-

/

--ti.I [1-]linlr; :.' .:

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.11109 of 2015

si;iEffi',,,, si;iEffi',,,,t [["s ]]ri' ,*' ,*' [[.f;]]

[["s ]]ri' ,*' ,*' [[.f;]]tIi..i. ,i-;'-,;-lr':; . [.]+ [:jt-4-i;; ]r,\*r+ffi,t [ii]:..' [- ][-"']1ce,,.\'e.. c:t\1)2 [1 ][l\lAq ][2024]j, ,i,i**.DesPA.1-qeoii,, ,, -' [-]

iffi

ALLOEING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

r''i+liir'1 ,,.{j',-l

.s-J! ., .,' [*f.*.:$#]i. ],;i jt.-i :r[i:.]