RANI PRATAP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                               301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally signed
                                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           by
           HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN
NADAF
           NADAF
           Date:
                                       CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 461 OF 2015
           2026.10.01
           18:48:43
           +0530              Rani Pratap Singh                     )
                              Age 41 years, Occ. Maid               )
                              Residing at Saiguru Nagar,            )
                              Saath Rasta Mumbai                    )
                              (At presently lodged at Byculla       )
                              Central Prison)                       )           ...Applicant
                                      Versus
                              The State Of Maharashtra              )
                              [At instance of D.B. Marg Police      )
                              Station Vide LAC. No.16 of 2011]      )           ...Respondent

                                                               ***
                              Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave a/w Mr. Shankar Ambhure for the Applicant.
                              Ms. Manisha R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent/State.
                              Mr. Deepak Hol, Investigation Officer, Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station is
                              present.
                                                               ***
                                                                  CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                                  DATE     : 1st OCTOBER, 2026
                              JUDGMENT:

                              1.      Invoking jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 of
                              Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short), Original Accused
                              No. 1 is challenging Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2015 passed in
                              Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2014 by Additional Sessions Judge,
                              Special Judge, (CBI), Gr-Bombay (C.R. 51). By the said impugned
                              order, the appeal filed by the Revision Applicant was dismissed
                              thereby confirming the conviction as well as sentence passed under
                              Judgment and Order 07.02.2014 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate,
                              Special Court for ITPA, 54th Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai in C.C. No.
                              1107/PW/2011.

                              Husen                                1
                                                 301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




2.      The learned Magistrate has convicted the Revision Applicant
for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘PITA’, for short). The Revision
Applicant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (‘R.I.’, for
short) for a period of 2 years for offences under Sections 3 and
Section 4 of PITA along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- and
Rs.1000/- respectively and in default of payment of fine to suffer
simple imprisonment (‘S.I.’, for short) of 1 month for both the
offences. The Revision Applicant is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for a
period of 3 years for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6
of PITA with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to suffer S.I. of
one month each in both the offences. Both sentences are directed to
run concurrently. This is confirmed by the Appeal Court.

3.      The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows. That on
17.02.2011, an NGO - Rescue Foundation gave information to Dr.
D.B. Marg Police Station that in Room Nos. 8 and 10 of Krishna
Building, first floor, Pavwala Street, Grant Road, Mumbai, some girls
are detained for the purpose of prostitution. That said information
was passed on to A.C.P. and Sr. Inspector Mr. Ajit Surve, who gave
instructions to the police team and representative of said NGO,
pancha and a decoy customer. That at 20.40 hrs., the decoy customer
gave signal on the mobile phone of Police Inspector Beldar and police
raided the spot with panchas. When police went to the first floor and
entered Room Nos. 8 and 10, one lady was seen to be present who
told her name as Rani Pratap Singh (Revision Applicant) and that she
is the Manager and conductor of the brothel. One cupboard and three


Husen                                2
                                                  301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




cabins were found. That on Mezzanine floor also, there were 3
cabins. The decoy customer was found with one girl who is victim-
PW-1. On search, the police found tissue papers, packets of condoms,
which were seized. The cash paid by decoy customer (Rs.500/- note
given before raid) was found on the person of Revision Applicant, on
search. Another girl was found in another cabin. On inquiry the girls
told that they do prostitution there and the earning is shared with the
Revision Applicant. Certain telephone/electricity bill/s were found in
the name of Original Accused No. 2 - Mr. Nandakishor Modi Yadav.
The police then took the Revision Applicant and said girls in custody,
went back to police station and complaint was lodged. The police
lodged Special LAC No. 16/2011.

4.      Investigation was completed. Charge sheet was filed. The
Revision Applicant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined
victim girl as PW-1, complainant (NGO worker) as PW-2, panch
witness as PW-3 who had accompanied the decoy customer (PW-4),
Investigating Officer (‘IO’ for short) Mr. Sudam Pandit Beldar is
examined as PW-5. The authorization order in favour of IO is
produced at Exhibit-28. Medical reports of the victim girls are
produced at Exhibit-29 and 30.

5.      Learned Magistrate who heard and tried the said case was
pleased to convict the Revision Applicant/Accused No. 1. Accused No.
2 was acquitted. The Revision Applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.
150 of 2014, which is dismissed by the impugned order.

6.      In these circumstances, the Revision Applicant filed the present


Husen                                  3
                                                 301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




revision which was admitted on 09.10.2015 and the substantive
sentence imposed upon the Revision Applicant was suspended and
the Revision Applicant was enlarged on bail with certain conditions.

7.      Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant submitted as under.

7.1.    That the whole action is initiated at the instance of an NGO
and people working with the NGO have been examined as panch
witness as well as decoy customer, who are interested witnesses. That
NGO wants to promote itself by boasting about number of girls
rescued. That no independent witness has been examined to support
the case of the prosecution.

7.2.    That PW-1 victim is not at all believable because she has
changed her versions about age, about being married, about being
Bangladeshi national and about having a child from time to time and
has given fatal admissions about such change of stands.

7.3.    That ‘detention’ is not proved as required under section 6 of
PITA.

7.4.    It is strenuously argued that PW-1 victim is an illegal
immigrant in the country, not being Indian citizen and being a
Bangladeshi citizen. That no action is initiated against PW-1 for
deportation. That an illegal immigrant cannot be believed as a
witness to convict Revision Applicant who is Indian citizen. That the
IO has admitted that no action is taken against PW-1 who is
Bangladeshi illegal immigrant.



Husen                                 4
                                                  301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




7.5.    That the IO was not properly authorised and provisions of
Sections 13 and 14 of PITA are violated, thereby vitiating entire case
of the prosecution, including cognizance and prosecution. That PW-5
- IO has admitted that he is not a Special Police Officer and he has
not received the copy of the authorisation. That the authorisation
produced at Exhibit-28 is general authorization which is not sufficient
compliance with Section 14 of the PITA because there is no written
order specifying the person to be arrested and the offence. Therefore,
section 14 of PITA is not complied with, thereby vitiating the entire
case of the prosecution.

7.6.    Relying on Exhibits-13, 21 and 33, he submitted that the place
of prostitution is not proved.

7.7.    He relied on following judgments in support of his case:

i.      Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh AIR 1962 SC 63.
ii.     Mohd. Hussain Babamiyan Ramzan Vs. State of Maharashtra
        1994 CRI. L.J. 1020.
iii.    State of Gujarat through C.B.I. Vs. Kumudchandra Pranjivan
        Shah 1995 CRI. L.J. 3623.
iv.     Smt. Jaya Rama Gauda & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
        2013 ALL MR (Cri) 675.
v.      Inderjit Singh Gurumal Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra (Cri.
        Revision Application No.469 of 2013, Order dated 05.12.2013
        High Court of Bombay).
vi.     C.P. Raju Vs. State of Kerala 2014 CRI. L.J. 2936.

8.      On the other hand, learned APP submitted that the learned
Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge has concurrently
convicted and sentenced the Revision Applicant and no interference
is required. She submitted that just because the persons working with


Husen                                 5
                                                   301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




NGO have supported and participated in the action against illegal
activity, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. She submitted
that the witnesses have sufficiently corroborated the case of the
prosecution. She further submitted that considering the provisions of
Section 6 of PITA, the consent or otherwise of the victim is immaterial
and the offence is sufficiently proved.

                         REASONS AND CONCLUSION

9.      I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

10.     First of all, it is important to note that the argument about PW-
1 victim being Bangladeshi or illegal immigrant and extended
argument that therefore Revision Applicant (Indian citizen) should
not be punished, is completely misconceived and is based on a
convoluted idea about prosecution. Just because the victim is an
illegal immigrant, the offence does not become any lesser. To say that
at the instance of a victim like PW-1, Revision Applicant should not
be prosecuted or convicted, completely ignores the fact that PW-1
victim is also a human being. This is nothing but victim shaming.
Such argument must be rejected at the threshold. When an offence is
committed, the effort under criminal law is to prosecute and punish
the perpetrator. The effort can never be and should not be to shame
the victim. Such argument clearly indicates cognitive bias. Just
because a victim is an illegal immigrant (assuming her to be so), the
Court cannot consider it as a reason for not convicting the
perpetrator. Being illegal immigrant will have its own legal
consequences, no doubt. But that will not make the offence any


Husen                                  6
                                                    301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




lesser.

11.       Useful reference in this regard can be made to what is observed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prajwala Vs. Union of India 2026
SCC OnLine SC 1053 which reads as under.

          “150. Perceptibly, the definition underwent a drastic shift-
          it changed from being gender-specific and focusing on the
          promiscuous offering of the body "by the woman" for hire
          to viewing the trade as inherently exploitative and
          abusive. The focus or spotlight was shifted from the
          prostitutes themselves and instead, placed on the persons
          benefiting from them. One could say that there was a
          significant pivot from scrutinizing the individual activity to
          targeting commercial exploitation. A principal reason for
          this rephrasing was to reiterate that the ITPA was largely
          brought forth to punish the perpetrators and not the
          prostitutes.
           xxxx“
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
12.       The law cannot permit an immigration label to become a
licence for indignity. Constant judgment can make us lose sight of the
person before the Court. The issue therefore is not whether the victim
possesses a valid immigration document; the issue is whether the
Accused has committed the offence involving a human being. The
Court must not allow a human being to disappear behind the labels
such as ‘illegal immigrant’, ‘sex worker’, or ‘rescued woman’. Each
label may have its own legal consequence, but none extinguishes
dignity of a victim and protection from trafficking. In that view of the


Husen                                   7
                                                  301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




matter, the said argument has no merit and it is rejected.

13.     So far as the argument about alleged lack of independent
witnesses is concerned, in cases like these, where raids are conducted
on brothels and known-places of prostitution, it is obvious that
independent witnesses from the Society will not be available. Persons
who are volunteering, such as the witnesses connected with an NGO,
as in the present case, will have to be taken aid of. Therefore,
evidence of PW-2 (complainant working as IO with NGO) and PW-4
(person working with NGO, who has acted as decoy customer) can
not be branded as interested witnesses.

14.     Another argument is PW-3 (local street cobbler) is a pliable
witness, as he has admitted to have his shop adjacent to police
chowky and that he has acted as panch in many D.B.Marg police
station cases. I have perused the evidence of this witness. In the teeth
of overall material on record, his evidence can not be discarded.
Useful reference can be made to Paragraph No. 1973 of Yakub Abdul
Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1 which reads
as under.

        “1973. The police when searching for a panch witness,
        need not go to far off place from the police station as the
        panchnama is required to be recorded in a close proximity
        of time, when the accused apprehending his disclosure
        statement. Therefore, on such material suspicion about the
        credential of the police or panch witnesses cannot be
        doubted, unless there is some material to prove the
        contrary. Had he been picked up from a far off place,


Husen                                 8
                                                      301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




        criticism could have been otherwise as to why the panch
        witness could not be called from neighbourhood.”


15.     So far as the argument about the Investigating Officer not
being Special Police Officer under Section 14 of PITA and the
extended argument that there has not been an order naming person
to be arrested is concerned, the said argument is factually incorrect in
view of authorization produced on record at Exhibit-28. I have
perused Exhibit-28 from the record and proceedings. It shows that
under Office Order 14.02.2011 signed by Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Girgaon Division, Mumbai and who is Special Police Officer
under PITA, has authorised PW-5 who is Inspector of Police at the
concerned Police Station specifically to exercise power under section
Section 14 proviso (iii) of PITA, which reads as under:
        “14. Offences to be cognizable - Notwithstanding anything
        contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any
        offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a
        cognizable offence within the meaning of that Code:
        Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in that Code,-
        (i) xxxx
        (ii) xxxx
        (iii)   any police officer not below the rank of [sub-inspector]
        specially authorised by the special police officer may, if he has
        reason to believe that on account of delay involved in obtaining the
        order of the special police officer, any valuable evidence relating to
        any offence under this Act is likely to be destroyed or concealed, or
        the person who has committed or is suspected to have committed
        the offence is likely to escape, or if the name and address of such a
        person is unknown or there is reason to suspect that a false name
        or address has been given, arrest the person concerned without
        such order, but in such a case he shall report, as soon as may be,
        to the special order, but in such a case he shall report, as soon as
        may be, to the special police officer the arrest and the
        circumstances in which the arrest was made.”
                                                         (emphasis supplied)




Husen                                    9
                                                   301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




16.     Bare reading of the above proviso shows that law has taken
sufficient care that if the Special Police Officer has reason to believe
that on account of delay involved in obtaining the order of Special
Police Officer, any valuable evidence is likely to be destroyed or
concealed or person who has committed or is suspected to have
committed the offence is likely to escape or if name and address of
such person is unknown or there is reason to suspect that a false
name or address has been given, then any police officer not below the
rank of Sub Inspector can be authorised to arrest. By specifically
referring to this proviso (iii), the Special Police Officer i.e. Assistant
Commissioner of Police has authorised PW-5 who is an Inspector of
Police (above the rank of sub-inspector), thereby complying with the
requirement of law. In that view of the matter, PW-5 IO was acting
with due authority. Hence, there is no merit in the submission of
learned counsel for the Revision Applicant that ‘Sections 13 and 14 of
PITA are violated and raid, investigation and prosecution, are
vitiated.’

17.     Next, the argument based on Exhibits-13, 33 and 21 is that
since those documents (telephone/electricity bills) show a different
building (not Krishna building), therefore place of prostitution is not
proved. This argument needs no consideration so far as the Revision
Applicant/Accused No. 1 is concerned. Those documents were the
basis on which Accused No. 2 Mr. Nandakishor Modi Yadav was
arrested. This argument has been considered by the Trial Court. It is
held that name of building on the said documents is not Krishna
Building and no explanation is given by Accused No. 2 as to how bill


Husen                                 10
                                                  301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




in his name was recovered by the police from the spot. The doubt
created by these circumstances have been noted and the benefit of
doubt has been given to Accused No. 2, who is acquitted. Accused
No. 2 is not at all concerned with the present Revision application,
which is filed only by Accused No. 1 - Revision Applicant. Since
Accused No. 2 was acquitted there is no question of its consideration
by the Appeal Court.

18.     The Revision Applicant was arrested from the spot (Krishna
Building) raided and she has been duly identified by PW-2, PW-4 and
PW-5 who have identified her and have confirmed that spot was
Krishna     building.   Therefore,     the    argument         based        on
telephone/electricity bills is of no consequence, so far as the Revision
Applicant is concerned. Therefore, the said argument is also rejected.

19.     The Magistrate and the Sessions Court has already taken
lenient view considering punishment provided under section 6 of
PITA.

20.     Another argument is that ‘detention’ is not proved. Since
consent is immaterial under section 6 of PITA, this argument need not
detain this Court any further, considering overall corroborating
evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

21.     The judgments of Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh (Supra),
Smt. Jaya Rama Gauda & Ors. (Supra) and C.P. Raju (Supra) are
relied upon in support of the argument about due authorisation as
Special Police Officer and alleged breach of Sections 13 and 14 of
PITA. Considering that there was factually proper authorization in the

Husen                                11
                                                   301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




present case (as explained above) the said judgments will not help
the Revision Applicant in principle.

22.     So far as judgments of Mohd. Hussain Babamiyan Ramzan
(Supra) and State of Gujarat        through C.B.I. Vs. Kumudchandra
Pranjivan Shah (Supra) are concerned, in view of what is observed
about availability of witnesses in such cases where brothels are
raided, the alleged untrustworthiness of stock/pliable witnesses
cannot be held as fatal. In Mohd. Hussain Babamiyan Ramzan Vs.
State of Maharashtra (Supra), the offence involved was in respect of
business of brown sugar/drug and in State of Gujarat through C.B.I.
Vs. Kumudchandra Pranjivan Shah (Supra), the offence involved was
under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In Inderjit Singh Gurumal
Singh (Supra), quarrel with bus driver leading to offence under
section 332 of IPC was involved, where the Court held that
independent witnesses such as passengers were not examined. The
offences involved in these cases were fundamentally different than
the offence involved in the present case.

        In the present case, brothel is raided involving prostitution and
immoral traffic involving human beings. Therefore, the said
judgments will not advance the case of the Revision Applicant.

23.     Re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted under the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as clarified in State Vs.
Manimaran (2019) 13 SCC 670, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:

        "16. As held in State of Kerala V. Puttumana Illath


Husen                                  12
                                                   301-REVN-461-2015 (J) C2.doc




        Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, ordinarily it
        would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate
        the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same
        when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
        Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Court in appeal.
        When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings of
        fact, in our view, the High Court was not right in interfering
        with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts
        below and the impugned order cannot be sustained."
                                             (emphasis supplied)

24.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, no perversity or miscarriage of justice is found in the
impugned order. There is no reason to interfere.

25.     Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Bail bond of Revision Applicant and surety, if any, stand canceled. 4
weeks’ time is granted to Revision Applicant to surrender.



                                                    (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Husen                                 13