JUDGEMENT The two accused who are the appellants herein were tried by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate on the following charges : The first charge against the first accused is for an offence under S. 3(1) of Act 104 of 1956 for keeping a brothel : the second charge against the first accused is for being a tenant and occupier of the premises in question within a distance of two hundred yards of Valliammal temple and Ramakrishna Clinic, knowing the same to be used for prostitution, an offence punishable under S. 7(2)(b) of the above Act. As against the second accused also two charges were framed : (1) that she was also keeping a brothel, an offence Punishable under S. 3(1) of the Act, and (2) that she carried on prostitution in the said premises within two hundred yards of Valliammal temple, a place of religious worship, and Ramakrishna Clinic, a Nursing home and hospital, an offence punishable under S. 7(1) of the Act. The first accused has been acquitted on the second charge framed against her, that is, an offence under S. 7(2)(b). She has been convicted on the first count, that is, for keeping a brothel house, and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50. The second accused was also convicted and sentenced on the first count and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50. On the second count also she has been convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment and in her case the sentences were made to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case are these. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, on receipt of information that in the house D. No. 18 Parangusapuram, Kodambakkam, the two accused were running a brothel, arranged for a trap to be laid on 25-10-1959. He sent for P. W. 1, who is said to be having a shop at No. 120 Arcot Road, which is near the premises in question. He was asked whether he would accede to go to the brothel house, pay the amount which would be given to him in marked notes and give a signal to indicate acceptance of the offer of money by the accused for their prostitution. He agreed to the same. Then P. W. 5 paid P. W. 1 Rs. He was asked whether he would accede to go to the brothel house, pay the amount which would be given to him in marked notes and give a signal to indicate acceptance of the offer of money by the accused for their prostitution. He agreed to the same. Then P. W. 5 paid P. W. 1 Rs. 40 in marked notes (M. O. 1 series) that, is, four ten rupee notes in the presence of P. W. 2 and another. A mahazar Ex. P. 1 was prepared and P. W. 5 attested the same. At 4 p.m. P. W. 1 went to the house in question. He was accompanied by another person who stood at some distance from the house. That person was to receive the signal given by P. W. 1 and communicate the same to P. W. 5 and his party. 3. P. W. 1 entered the house and found two girls sitting on two chairs. They asked him what he wanted and he said that he wanted a girl for keeping company in a bed room. The accused 1 is said to have told him that he could choose either of them, referring to herself and A. 2, and pay Rs. 50. To quote her own words, "You can choose one of us and pay Rs. 50." Then P. W. 1 told her that he was prepared to pay only Rs. 40. Thereupon accused 1 is said to have told P. W. 1 that he can have accused 2 for Rs. 40. P. W. 1 agreed. Then P. W. 1 attempted to pay Rs. 40 to accused 1. But she directed him to hand over the money to accused 2. So, he gave the money to accused 2. After payment of the money to accused 2, as per the arrangement, he came to the verandah and lighted a cigar thus giving the signal. Then coming in he went to the bed room with accused 2. 4. When he was inside the room, the Assistant Commissioner entered the house along with the witness P. W. 2 and another. He then found accused 1 sitting on a chair in the hall. He questioned her as to who was the new comer and about the other girl, referring to accused 2. Accused 1 is said to have pointed out to him the bed room. He then found accused 1 sitting on a chair in the hall. He questioned her as to who was the new comer and about the other girl, referring to accused 2. Accused 1 is said to have pointed out to him the bed room. The Assistant Commissioner then went near the bed room with P. W. 2 and another witness. The door of the bed room was then closed but not bolted. He opened the door and found P. W. 1 and accused 2 on a cot in a compromising position. He asked them to come out. They dressed and then came out. He questioned P. W. 1 about the currency notes handed over to him and P. W. 1 told him what he did, viz., that he handed over the money to accused 2 and when P. W. 5 questioned accused 2, accused 2 told him that she handed over the money to accused 1. Then P. W. 5 questioned accused 1 and she produced M. O. 1 series from her waist. He showed the notes to P. W. 2 and the woman witness who accompanied him. A mahazar, Ex. P. 2, was prepared, and on a comparison of the notes, it was found that the notes produced by accused 1 were the same as were given to P. W. 1 before he entered the brothel. After further investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the accused for the offences mentioned earlier in the judgment. 5. There is no doubt that the Assistant Commissioner is a special officer appointed under the Act for the purpose of investigating this case. The lower court has found that this premises is used both by the first and second accused and that there is no proof that it was solely in the occupation of accused 1, and therefore, acquitted the first accused of the second charge, but convicted the first accused on the first charge and the second accused on both the charges framed against her. 6. The main contention of the learned counel, Mr. Venkatanarasimham, who appears for both the accused, is that the facts disclosed will not make S. 2 (a) applicable to the premises in question and make it come under the definition of a brothel contained in that Section. 6. The main contention of the learned counel, Mr. Venkatanarasimham, who appears for both the accused, is that the facts disclosed will not make S. 2 (a) applicable to the premises in question and make it come under the definition of a brothel contained in that Section. A "brothel" is defined as follows : "Brothel" includes any house, room, or place or any portion of any house, room or place, which is used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes." 7. The contention of the counsel is that what is proved is only one act of lapse of conduct on the part of the accused 2 and that will not make her a prostitute and the premises a brothel. He relies on a decision of Ramaswami J. in Crl. App. No. 536 of 1959. 8. On the question as to whether the evidence disclosed that the premises is a brothel, the following circumstances have to be noticed. P. W. 1 is a stranger. He goes to the house of the accused who are utter strangers to him. When he was questioned as to why he came there, he says that he wanted a girl for his company. Immediately accused 1 says that he can choose one of them for Rs. 50 and P. W. 1 says that he can pay only Rs. 40. The offer is accepted and the first accused asks P. W. 1 to take accused 2 and both of them go to the bed room. This evidence in my opinion is sufficient to prove that both of them are prostitutes. It is not likely that unless they were Prostitutes, the moment a stranger comes and wants a girl they will offer themselves, one of them or both of them, on payment of any consideration. It is only a prostitute who can offer her body for payment to a stranger when he comes and asks for her company. The demand of P. W. 1 for the company of a girl and the answer of the first accused that he could choose one of them for Rs. 50, then P. W. 1 offering to Pay only Rs. The demand of P. W. 1 for the company of a girl and the answer of the first accused that he could choose one of them for Rs. 50, then P. W. 1 offering to Pay only Rs. 40 and thereafter accused 1 accepting the offer and asking P. W. 1 to take the second accused, these circumstances, in my opinion, are sufficient to establish that both of them are prostitutes within the meaning of Sec. 2(a) of the Act. 9. Once it is established that both of them are prostitutes then the question that arises is whether the premises was used as a brothel. Learned counsel contends that in this case money was paid to accused 2. Accused 1 therefore did not receive the money for the prostitution of accused 2. When P. W. 1 offered the money and if she has received the money and sent accused 2 along with P. W. 1 into the bed room, then it would certainly amount to running a brothel. But inasmuch as accused 1 did not receive the money and directed the money to be paid to accused 2 who was going to offer her body to P. W. 1, it cannot be said that accused 1 was making any gain on the prostitution of another, that is, accused 2. The further contention is that though the money might be recovered from accused 1 it would only amount to accused 2 giving the money to accused 1 for the purpose of safe custody during the time when accused 2 was inside the room with P. W. 1. I have already held that both the accused are prostitutes. No doubt, the money was paid to accused 2 and it was recovered ultimately from accused 1. The fact that two prostitutes are living in a house and using the premises for prostitution, and the fact that the money paid to one of them, that is to the person who goes with the man seeking her company and the recovery of the same from the other would establish that both of them are using the premises for the mutual gain of both of them. Considerable stress was laid on the meaning of the words "mutual gain of two or more prostitutes" and it was contended that it must be established that there was reciprocity between them and that in this case what is established is only that accused 2 paid the money to accused 1 and the contrary namely that accused 1 Paid accused 2 for her prostitution has not been established, and that therefore, the facts cannot be taken as establishing that there was a case of a premises being used as a brothel for the "mutual gain of two or more prostitutes." It seems to me that it would be a reasonable inference to be drawn on the facts disposed that these two women are in the house for the mutual gain of both of them. It is not necessary that the prosecution must further establish that what is paid to accused 1 comes into the hands of accused 2 and vice versa. From what has been established in this case, viz., that when both the girls were in the house and when a man seeking the company of a girl came there and one of the girls bargains or demands money and one of them tells the visitor he can have either of them on payment of Rs. 50 and the other girl is silent without protesting that she would bargain for herself and merely allows the first girl to bargain for her also and finally the offer is accepted by the visitor who chooses one of the girls and goes into the room with her and the money Paid to the girl keeping his company is ultimately found with the other girl, I think it is quite a reasonable and normal inference that can be drawn from the facts that the house was being used for prostitution for the mutual gain of both and in this view it seems to me that the offence under S. 3(1) has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. An argument was advanced that it was the mother of the two girls who rented the house and that she was in that house as a patient and therefore, it could not be said that the two accused rented the house. 10. An argument was advanced that it was the mother of the two girls who rented the house and that she was in that house as a patient and therefore, it could not be said that the two accused rented the house. The evidence of P. W. 5, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, shows that no one else was found in the house and that the mother was not there. Assuming that the mother has rented the house, there is still the use of the premises by the two accused. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention. 11. So. as far as accused 1 is concerned, she has been rightly convicted under S. 3(1) of the Act. 12. As regards accused 2, she has also been proved to be keeping a brothel for the mutual benefit of both, viz., herself and accused 1. She was therefore rightly found guilty under S. 3(1) of the Act. As regards the second charge against her, it is not disputed that the premises in question is within 200 yards of the Valliamman temple, a place of religious worship, and the Ramakrishna Clinic, a nursing home and hospital, and on the footing that accused 1 and accused 2 were using the premises as a brothel for their mutual gain, the offence under S. 7(1) is made out against her and her conviction under that section is, therefore, justified. 13. The result is that the conviction of the first appellant on the first count and of the second appellant on both the counts are confirmed. The sentences imposed are the minimum prescribed under the Act, and, therefore, I am unable to interfere with the sentences either, and they are also confirmed, and the appeal is dismissed.