N Criminal Appeal No 300 of 1975
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 17th March 1975 of the Calcutta High Court in Govt
Appeal No 9 of 1974 and Criminal Revision Nos
438 and 524 of 1974
D Mookherjee and D N Mukherjee for the Appellants
A K Sen and D N Gupta for Respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J
Not for dramatic effect but to sting social conscience we set out the tragic story of this case which is typical of the spreading disease of immoral traffic to remedy which the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women And Girls Act 1956 for short the Act was enacted by Parliament in a mood of high morality but with such drafting inefficiency that it has pathetically failed to produce any decline in the malady
The scene is the Isias Bar 15 Free School Street Calcutta
A hall of enchantment extends nocturnal invitation to have a nice time with svelte sylphs
The entrance fee is but a paltry Rs 15 per man and inside is served animating liquor
Scantily clad female flesh of sweet seventeen or thereabouts flit about or sit on laps to the heady tune of band music
They solicit carnal custom and the willing male victims pay Rs 30  choose whom they fancy drink together and taking leave of decencies indulge in promiscuous sex exercise legally described as operation prostitution
The stage is busy with many men and girls moving into rooms lavatories and chambers
The curtain rises and a raiding party of police and excise officers surprise this arotic company drowned in drink and damsels
This lacherous drama need not detain us further
The Act went into action a prosecution was launched against many under section 7 resulting in conviction and sentence of two persons the proprietor and the manager of the Isias Bar
Often times a bar or restaurant is a euphemism for a brothel and the socialites unsuspectedly and without smirch satisfy their sex in these respectably labellel houses patronised by even prestigious dignitaries and opulent businessmen
An appeal to the High Court substantially failed and the appeal by the State on some counts partly succeeded
In this Court leave was refused regarding the challenge against the guilt and so the findings sustaining the conviction stand but it is necessary to clarify that ultimately the High Court modified the conviction to an extent and we have to proceed on the footing that the accused have been found guilty of offenses under section 72 a section 31 but acquitted under section 72b
What is most pertinent to the present appeal is that an order was made under section 181 read with sec
182 directing the occupiers of portion of premises Nos 15 and 15A Free School Street commonly known as Isias Bar  to be evicted therefrom within a period of seven days from the 302 date of this order and restore possession thereof to the owner landlord or his agent and we further direct that this premises or any portion thereof shall not be leased out or otherwise given possession of to or for the benefit of the person or persons who were connected with the improper user thereof
 We had granted special leave limited to the attack on this order for eviction under section 182 read with section 181
The area of discussion in these arguments is thus confined to the power to throw out the occupier of the guilty premises on conviction for offences under sections 31 and 72a on top of the sentence imposed
An appreciation of the legal tangle can be facilitated by a brief but necessary sketch of the indubitable foundational facts and the basic legal provisions bearing on the orders under section 18
The court as earlier mentioned passed an order following on the sentence that since a conviction under sections 3 and 7 had been rendered there would be a direction evicting the appellants occupiers from the theatre of prostitutional operation viz the Isiah Bar
The Bar is beyond the offending distance of 200 yards of any public place  referred to in sub section
1 of section 7
The said sub section itemises premises such as places of public religious worship educational institutions hostels hospitals nursing homes and such other public places as may be notified by the authority designated
At the same time it is a proven fact that the appellants have been keeping or managing a brothel within the meaning of section 31 and are keepers of a public place knowingly permitting prostitutes for the purposes of their trade to resort to or remain in such public place viz the Isiah Bar
Section 18 sub sections
1 to 4 may be reproduced in extenso before analysing the submissions made by counsel on either side 181
A magistrate may on receipt of information from the police or otherwise that any house room place or any portion thereof within a distance of two hundred yards of any public place referred to in sub section 1 of section 7 is being run or used as a brothel by any person or is being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade issue notice on the owner lessor or landlord of such house room place or portion or the agent of the owner lessor or landlord or on the tenant lessee occupier of or any other person in charge of such house room place or portion to show cause within seven days of the receipt of the notice why the same should not be attached for improper user thereof and if after hearing the person concerned the magistrate is satisfied that the house room place or portion is being used as a brothel or for carrying on prostitution then the magistrate may pass orders a directing eviction of the occupier within seven days of the passing of the order from the house room place or portion 303 b directing that before letting it out during the period of one year immediately after the passing of the order the owner lessor or landlord or the agent of the owner lessor or landlord shall obtain the previous approval of the magistrate Provided that if the magistrate finds that the owner lessor or landlord as well as the agent of the owner lessor or landlord was innocent of the improper user of the house room place or portion he may cause the same to be restored to the owner lessor or landlord or the agent of the owner lessor or landlord with a direction that the house room place or portion shall not be leased out or otherwise given possession of to or for the benefit of the person who was allowing the improper user therein
2 A court convicting a person of any offence under section 3 or section 7 may pass orders under sub section 1 without further notice to such person or show cause as required in that sub section
3 Orders passed by the magistrate or court under sub section 1 or sub section 2 shall not be subject to appeal and shall not be stayed or set aside by the order of any court civil or criminal and the said orders shall cease to have validity after the expiry of one year Provided that where a conviction under section 3 or section 7 is set aside on appeal on the ground that such house room place or any portion thereof is not being run or used as a brothel or is not being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade any order passed by the trial court under sub section 1 shall also be set aside
4 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force when a magistrate passes an order under sub section 1 or a court passes an order under sub section 2 any lease or agreement under which the house room place or portion is occupied at the time shall become void and inoperative
 The project of the statute to the extent we are concerned may now be set out
When a magistrate receives information that any brothel is being run within a distance of 200 yards of any public place such as has been mentioned earlier in sub section
1 of section 7 he may issue notice to the owner tenant occupier or other person in charge of or connected with the brothel to show cause why it should not be attached for improper user
After a hearing being conducted the magistrate if satisfied may order eviction of the occupier and further direct that the owner or landlord shall not let out the premises for a period of one year after the passing of the order without his previous approval
304 In short the house of ill fame where Mrs Warren s Profession is carried on is virtually sealed off by attachment by the magistrate
However if the owner satisfies the magistrate of his innocence it may be restored to him with a direction that it shall not be leased out to the person who had been improperly using it for immoral purposes
Section 181 proprio vigore applies only to brothels within the vicious distance of 200 yards of specified types of public institutions
No criminal prosecution or conviction is necessary for taking action under section 181
Strictly speaking this is not a punitive provision but a preventive one
This power vested in the magistrate is calculated to ensure moral hygiene in the locality which is particularly sensitive
If one may say so it is a moral scavenging operation or a fumigation process whereby the dangerous visitations may be totally inhibited by a legally enforced closure
So far as we are concerned the Isiah Bar is not shown to be within the offending distance and section 181 cannot therefore apply
Indeed the Magistrate and the High Court have proceeded to exercise powers under section 182 and the entire controversy before us is as to the real import of that provision
By way of aside we may say that plausible submissions were urged by Shri D Mukherjee supported by the language of section 182
Had the drafting been more careful and lucid the argument would have been obviated
This Court has more than once pointed out that lack of legislative simplicity has led to interpretative complexity
The home truth that legislation is for the people and must therefore be plain enough has hardly been realised by our law makers
Judges looking at statutes are forced to play a linguistic game guessing at the general legislative purpose and straining at semantics
In the present case we have had to reach the conclusion against the appellants by broadening the dimensions of Heyden s case1 importing a context purpose  teleological approach
There are many canons of statutory construction but the golden rule is that there are no golden rules if we may use Shavian language
We must emphasize once more that legislative draftsmen and legislators must not confuse each other but start talking to their real audience the people by writing law in unmistakable and simple language
Back to section 182
Once a court convicts a person under section 3 or section 7 as in this case it may pass orders under sub section 1 of section 18 without further notice to such person to show cause as required in that sub section
Shri Mukherjee s submission is that this power of eviction is conditioned by the limitations of section 181
Orders under sub section
1 of section 18 can admittedly be passed only if the brothel is within 200 yards  distance
Since in this case the place is beyond that distance Shri Mukherjee argues that sub section
2 cannot apply
The words pass orders under sub section  creates ambiguity which we have sought to dispel by trying to advance the remedy and suppress the evil through the interpretative methodology
305 Shri A K Sen has explained and we think rightly that section 3 punishes persons who keep brothels
Sub section
3 of section 3 lays down that notwithstanding any other law any lease  under which such premises  are held or occupied at the time of the commission of the offence shall become void and inoperative with effect from the date of the said conviction 
It is plain therefore that the consequence of a conviction under section 3 is the invalidation of the lease of the premises where the brothel is run
The logical consequence must be that the occupier must be thrown out of the prostitutional premises
This is achieved by exercise of the power under section 182
Section 71 punishes prostitution in premises within a distance of 200 yards of specified sensitive places set out therein
Section 72 works out a dichotomy sub section
2a punishes the keeper of any public place who knowingly permits prostitutes to resort to such place that is any public place
No question of distance arises here but sub section 2b specifically mentions as an ingredient of the offence that the premises must be such as are referred to in sub section
1 that is within 200 yards distance
A person convicted either under sub section
1 or under sub section
2 a or b section 7 will be covered by section 182 because the latter provision empowers the court to pass orders under section 181 if there is a conviction under section 7 regardless of whether it falls under sub section
2 a or b of that section
Moreover if we have regard to the wholesome purpose of cleansing houses of ill fame it can be achieved only by a broader construction of section 182
This Court in Sub Div
Magistrate vs Ram Kali1 held that section 181 deals with one class and section 182 relates to another class
Section 181 is a summary procedure for closing down obnoxious places of prostitution without going through the detailed process of a criminal prosecution
It is a quick acting defensive mechanism calculated to extinguish the brothel and promote immediate moral sanitation having regard to the social susceptibility of places like shrines schools hostels hospitals and the like Section 182 on the other hand operates only where persons have been convicted of offences under section 3 or section 7
Thus the place is found to be put to prostitutional use in a criminal trial
It stands to reason that if the purpose of extirpating the commercial vice from that venue were to be successful the occupier must be expelled therefrom
This is precisely what has been done in the present case
Section 182 operates not merely on places within the offending distance of 200 yards but in all places where the activity of prostitution has been conducted
A close reading of section 182 indicates that the orders under sub section
1 referred to therein do not wholesale import the substantive paragraph of section 181 but only the evicting orders contained in section 182 clauses a and b
What is by a process of abbreviation imported into section 182 is the decretal part of section 181 to the extent it is written into section 181 a and b
There is some clumsiness 306 about the drafting as we have already stated
Even so if the purpose is carried to the meaning that we assign the section fulfils the social cause
We are in the International Women s Year a circumstance meaningful socially but not relevant legally
Even so it is time to tighten up this statute and we may permit ourselves a few concluding observations hopefully
Maybe there are other provisions of the Act which have contributed to its dismal failure in the field and the legislature must in the International Year of Women protect the virtue of the weaker sex from the purchasing power of the takers of virginity who sip every flower and change every hour
No nation with all its boasts and all its hopes can ever morally be clean till all its women are really free free to live without sale of their young flesh to lascivious wealth or commerciailsing their luscious figures
India to redeem this gender justice  and to prescribe prostitution whereby rich men buy poor women through houses of vice has salved its social conscience by enacting the Act
But the law is so ill drafted and lacunose that few who follow the most ancient Profession in the World have been frightened into virtue and the customers of wine cum women are catered to respectably in bars hotels and night clubs in sophisticated and subtle ways especially in our cities
We dismiss the appeal upholding the power of the magistrate to order eviction when there is a conviction under section 3 or section 7 confident that public power vested in a public functionary for public benefit shall be used whenever conditions necessary for the exercise are present so that a comprehensive social purpose of moral clean up of public places is accomplished
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants were keepers of a public place namely a bar
They were convicted under section 31 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffia in Women and Girls Act
1956 for keeping or managing a brothel in the bar and under section 72a for knowingly permitting prostitutes for the purpose of their trade to resort to or remain in the bar
There was also a direction under section 181 read with section 182 of the Act evicting the appellants from the bar
It was contended that the order of eviction was bad because the bar was not within 200 yds
of any public institution of the type referred to in section 181
 HELD  The Magistrate has power to order eviction when there is a conviction either under section 3 or section 7
306 E Under section 181 when a Magistrate receives information that a brothel is being run within a distance of 200 yds
from certain specified types of public institutions he may order the eviction of the occupier after hearing him
Under section 182
once a court convicts a person under section 3 or section 7 it may pass orders under section 181 without further notice to such person to show cause as required in that sub section
A close reading of section 182 however indicates that the orders under sub section 1 referred to therein do not wholesale import the substantive paragraph of section 181 but only the eviction orders contained therein
F H a The consequence of a conviction under section 3 is the invalidation of any lease of the premises where the brothel is run
The logical consquence must be that the occupier must be thrown out of such premises
This is achieved by the exercise of the power under section 182
305 B b Section 71 punishes prostitution in premises within a distance of 200 yds
of specified places
Section 72b punishes the person who permits the use of premises in his occupation for prostitution and it is an ingredient of the offence that the premises must be within 200 yards distance of the specified places but section 72a punishes the keeper of any public place who knwingly permits prostitutes to resort to such place for their trade
No question of distance arises with respect to such a conviction
But section 182 empowers the court to pass orders under section 181 if there is a conviction under section 7 regardless of whether it falls under section 72a or b
305 C E Therefore section 182 operates not merely on places within the offendin distance of 200 yds
but in all places where the activity of prostitution had been conducted
305 G c To dispel the ambiguity in section 182 it must be interpreted in such a way as to advance the remedy and suppress the evil
If the purpose of extirpating the commercial vice from a place were to be successful the occupier must be expelled from there
304 H Sub Div
Magistrate vs Ram Kali 1968 1 SCR 205 and Heyden s   case referred to 301