1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3569 OF 2009 Dilawar s/o Makabul Sayyad age 30 years, occ. Pvt. Service r/o Ward no. 2, Shrirampur Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.S. Panale, Advocate for the applicant Mr. N.N. Jadhav, APP for the State. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 10 th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an application presented by original accused no. 3 seeking suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal. The earlier application presented by the accused was rejected. Said application was considered before receipt of record and proceeding. The applicant has presented instant application and has made available the paper book containing deposition of the witnesses and all relevant material on which reliance is placed by the prosecution. Record and proceeding is also made available 2 for perusal. In these circumstances, therefore, it is prayed by the applicant to re­consider his application. 2 Accused / applicant is convicted for offences punishable under section 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) act, 1956. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under section 3(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. He further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Accused is admittedly an employee and at the relevant time was serving at dhaba run by accused no. 2 Vasant Londhe. The only act attributed to accused no. 3 is that he escorted the two couples to the room which were situate at the back side of the dhaba. It is alleged that accused no. 2 Vasant obtained Rs.200/­ from the customers and permitted them access to the rooms. Accused no. 3 being the servant of accused no. 2 appears to have escorted the customers to the room. Except the said allegation, there is no act attributed to accused no. 3. Accused is held guilty for commission of offence punishable 3 under section 4 of the Act which prescribes punishment in respect of commission of offence by a person over the age of 18 years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution. Prima facie, therefore, the provisions of section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 have no applicability so far as the act attributable to the accused / applicant is concerned. Accused / applicant is directed to undergo sentence of imprisonment for a term of seven years. Apart from this aspect, accused no. 2 who is the owner of the dhaba is already enlarged on bail by this court while entertaining his appeal. In this view of the matter, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail by suspending substantive sentence of imprisonment. Application therefore stands allowed. Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused in Sessions Case no. 61/2007 by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur on 18­2­2009 stands suspended and the accused / applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/­ with one surety for the like amount. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/criappln3469.09.odt