Captain K.I. Sunil Simon @ Sunil Simon v. State Of Haryana And ORS
!
!
"
#$ $%! &' (& % "
% % &')& * % ' % """"
! # $ %&'( + , * - &
% . / % $0!12+& +-& +0 $
'&+34&
5&&2& - 6 7 ( 8'&+3247 % &9+324'8&
+ :, 5
'&+34& ;0& 3&) $ & ) $ &*% % % .
. $ .< %
$ = % 9 6 >& % 1 -& 3& ) $
'$$ ( $
% % % 0!&
% . %% ( $ % %( $% (
+324' % . %( %$
( %0!
? (& $
% % % . .
$ @ $ %$ =* ?
%
. %% * . %
$
% %% $ % * 32 +3 % A
& % *
% . @ & % & %
$
% %
* 5 % % % & % % . (% .
*% . $%% $
$
% &*%* .<
* % %: :$ * ?
$ % % & $
. % . $
$
% %(%
% $ % $%% .? .
% .
.%% 2 ' %* %%0! / * +-&* . $% 5+- +-% $ % * 32 +3&%*( & % A
&
% *
% . @ %
$%$ $ " ( & % ( $ &% * * %" $ %$
*% $
* ( &%(. @ . % ( $ $'$ %
. ?
* 0 % &( %$
( %
0! ? (&% . * % .< * % %$ * ?
$ % 6%
( @ %0! %
:
!!"# $%&'
(")**+,*-* - !* "
--". * /0,/ $
4 ' &% $
$
%
$ $% * $% / . % ( %( $@ . %$ * ?
$ %
$ ( &
? % &% &%. $. % %& % $ &
5&&2& -%+324' * % + :, . %(.
$
% C & %*?.
(
. %
D.'%. $%
! "
#!( 1 35+% %
:
29.
In the judgements mentioned above, relied upon by the applicant in support of his second contention, the Gujarat High Court, Karnataka High Court, as well as Andhra Pradesh High Court also observed that merely the presence of a person as a customer at a brothel would not attract the ingredients of offence u/s 3/4/5/7/8/9 of the Act. Paragraph No.5 of the judgement in Goenka Sajan Kumar (supra) reads as under:-
"5. None of these sections speaks about punishment to the customer of a brothel house. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, as the petitioner was not running a brothel house, nor did he allow his premises to be used as a brothel house. The petitioner is not alleged to be living on the earnings of prostitution. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was procuring or inducing any person for the sake of prostitution, nor is it the case of the prosecution that any person was earning on the premises where prostitution is carried out."
30.
Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Nartu Rambabu (supra), relying upon the judgement in Goenka Sajan Kumar (supra). observed in paragraph No.8 that when a person visits a brothel as a customer. then he is not liable for prosecution for the offence u/s 3/4/5 of the Act.
31.
In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the view that if a person visits a brothel, then, at the most, he may be said to be a procurer of a prostitute to satisfy his lust but not for the purpose of prostitution because acquiring a person for prostitution means sexual exploitation or abuse for commercial purposes and not for any other purpose which does not have any commercial purpose or earning money. Therefore, this Court answered both the questions raised in this case. First, a search conducted in violation of Section 15(2) of the Act can be said to be irregular but this ground cannot be the basis for quashing the impugned proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Still, this ground is available during trial, which can be decided on the basis of evidence, which may ultimately make the search doubtful. Second, a customer who visits the brothel will not be liable u/s 3/4/5/7/8/9 of the Act."
! & ( *%
% .(&
2 % & % * 0! 12+& +-& +0 $
'&+34& 5& &2& -+324'& + :, 5
'& +34& ;0& 3&) $ & ) $
% .
/
$% % . / % /%
7 ! (
? E%% ?
$= = E%% .F =