IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1775 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP.8956/2009 IN CC.40/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 4 AND 5 ------------------------------------------------ 1. AJESH, S/O. ELIAS, PARANAYIL VEEDU, MUTHALAKKONAM, THODUPUZHA. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. GOPINATHA PANICKER, MADATHIL VEEDU, MELOORKARA, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1775 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 19.5.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on C.M.P.No.8956 of 2009 in C.C.No.40 of 2008 declining to exonerate petitioners of the charges against them invoking Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Case is that petitioners along with a few others committed offences punishable under Sections 3 to 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”). According to the prosecution, on getting information about the alleged incident Circle Inspector, Ernakulam Town North Police Station along with party went to 'Aiswarya Ayurvedic Clinic' situated on the side of At.Alberts lane, not far away from St.Alberts School on 9.1.2008 and allegedly found petitioners (accused Nos.4 and 5) and another person engaged in sexual intercourse with women in adjoining rooms of that clinic. On questioning the ladies (accused Nos.6 to 8) they said that they were brought to that clinic by accused Nos.1 and 2 promising to pay consideration to them for engaging in sexual intercourse. Police seized currency notes from accused Nos.6 to 8 who stated that the money was given to them by petitioners and accused No.3. Th women also told the police that accused Nos.1 and 2 who Crl.R.P.No.1775/2009 2 had lured and brought them for sexual activities on promise of payment of money were sitting in the room adjacent. Accordingly, petitioners and accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 were arrested at the spot and the currency notes, mobile phones, etc. were taken into custody. Petitioners and others were charge sheeted by the police. According to the petitioners they had been to the clinic for getting ayurveda treatment, been falsely implicated and taken to custody. Learned counsel contends that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners to frame charge against them. 3. I have gone through the relevant records provided by learned Public Prosecutor. There are sufficient materials prima facie indicating that alleged incident occurred in the manner stated by the prosecution and that petitioners were found engaging in sexual intercourse with the women on payment of mony as consideration and further, that currency notes given by the petitioners were seized from the women at the time of arrest. Statement of the police officials who had witnessed the incident and detected the offence also state about the incident. 4. On the question whether the place of occurrence comes within the purview of Section 7 of the Act, it has to be noted that the alleged incident itself occurred in an ayurvedic clinic. Prima facie, that clinic can be said to be a place intended for use by, or accessible to the public as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act. The clinic was being used as a brothel. The women have been procured for the sake of prostitution. There are materials to show prima facie that the Crl.R.P.No.1775/2009 3 women were brought to the clinic for the purpose of prostitution on payment of consideration and that petitioners sexually exploited them. The question whether those allegations are correct or not, is not a matter to be decided at this stage. What is required to be considered at this stage is only whether the charge against the petitioners is groundless. On going through the records I am unable to accept the contention that the charge against petitioners is groundless. There is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.5426 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks