Judgment G.N.Prasad, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State Government against the acquittal of the five respondents, three of whom are females and two males. The female respondents, Shanti Bai, Hasina Bai and Bina Bai, were charged with offence under Sections 7 (i), 7 (2) and 8 (a) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. The male respondents, Jagrup Singh and Sukhdeo Singh, were charged with offences under Secs. 5 (1) (a) and 7 (1) of the Act. The offences are said to have been committed on the 21st January, 1961, at the Kotha of one Kulsum Bai, on the Ashok Rajpath, in Mohalla Tarkari Bazar, at a distance of about 200 yards from Chowk police-station and 15 to 20 yards from a Shivala which has been declared to be a public place by a notification dated the 4th April, 1960, issued by the District Magistrate of Patna under Section, 7 (i) of the Act. 2. The prosecution case is that Sri T. P. Singh (P. W. 1), Assistant Superintendent of Police, Patna City and a special police officer within the meaning of Sec.13 of the Act, received some confidential information that illegal prostitution was being indulged in at the Kotha of Kulsum Bai. Accordingly, he organised a raiding party consisting of himself, Inspector Madan Mohan Pd. Sinha {P. W. 2), Assistant Sub-Inspector Surajdip Singh (P. W. 4), Literate Constable B. N. Pandey (P. W. 5) and two residents of the locality, Devendra Prasad Jaiswal (P. W. 3) and Murari Lal (P. W. 7), and went in a body to the Kotha of Kulsum Bai, reaching there about 10.40 p. m. in the night of the 21st January, 1961. On reaching near the Kotha, the members of the police party saw the three female respondents standing on the balcony in the upper storey of the house. They were exhibiting their persons and making certain gestures with a view to attract persons who were passing on the road. The two male respondents happened to be attracted by the persons and gestures of the three ladies and they proceeded to ascend the steps leading to the Kotha. While they were so ascending they were caught by the members of the police party on the staircase itself. The two male respondents happened to be attracted by the persons and gestures of the three ladies and they proceeded to ascend the steps leading to the Kotha. While they were so ascending they were caught by the members of the police party on the staircase itself. Subsequently, the three female respondents were also arrested by the police in a room adjacent to the balcony. The kotha was searched, but nothing incriminating was found there. All the five respondents were brought to the police station under arrest and, at 11.15 p. m., the same night, a first information report (exhibit 2) was drawn up by the Assistant Superintendent of Police (P. W. 1) himself. The investigation followed and, in due course, all the five respondents were put on trial before the learned sub-divisional magistrate of Patna City. 3. All the respondents denied their guilt and claimed to have been falsely implicated on mere suspicion. The case of the two male respondents is that they were working as mistris in the garage of one Sucha Singh and it was while they were returning from a cinema-house that they were arrested by the police. The case of respondent Shanti Bai is that she is the wife of one Rashid who is a motor-driver, and that of respondent Bina Bai is that she is the wife of Fakruddin (D. W. 3), a rickshaw-puller. The case of respondent Hasina Bai is that she is the niece of Md. Kasim (D. W. 1) to whom she had come from Bhagalpur, which is her usual place of residence, on the occasion of a ceremony of Milad Sharif which was to take place on the same night. All the five respondents denied that they were out to indulge in prostitution as envisaged in the Act. 4. The prosecution case was supported in Court by P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 who were all members of the police raiding party. Among them, P. Ws. 1 and 4 spoke to the actions of the three female respondents in exhibiting their persons, and all the six witnesses spoke about gestures or signalling in which the three female respondents were indulging while standing on the balcony in question. In cross-examination, however, P. W. 3 did not claim to have seen any of the respondents giving signals but, upon the evidence of P. Ws. In cross-examination, however, P. W. 3 did not claim to have seen any of the respondents giving signals but, upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, there can be no room for doubt that the three female respondents, who according to P. Ws. 1 and 4, were also making exhibitions of their persons, were making certain gestures, which have been described by the Assistant Superintendent of Police (P. W. 1) as "dirty demeanour", with a view to attract passersby on the road. There is no reason to think that any of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have tried to indulge in false implication against any of the respondents. The learned Sub-divisional magistrate has not disbelieved the prosecution story but he has taken the view that, upon the facts proved by the prosecution, no offence has been made out against any of the respondents. In this view, the learned sub-divisional magistrate has acquitted all the respondents of the charges framed against them; giving rise to the present appeal. 5. It is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 5 (1) (a) of the Act lays down that any person who procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl, whether with or without her consent, for the purpose of prostitution, shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than two years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. Under Section 7 (1) of the Act, any woman or girl who carries on prostitution, and the person with whom such prostitution is carried out, in any premises which are within a distance of 200 yards from any place, of public religious worship, educational institution, hostel, hospital, nursing home or such other public place of any kind as may be notified in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police or District Magistrate in the manner prescribed, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months. Section 7 (2) of the Act provides for the punishment of any person who being the keeper of any public place knowingly permits prostitutes for the purpose of their trade to resort to or to remain in such place; or being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of such premises knowingly permits the same or any part of it to be used for prostitution. The relevant portions of Section 8 (a) of the Act are in these terms: - "Whoever ..... tempts or endeavours to tempt, or attracts or endeavours to, attract the attention of, any person for the purpose of prostitution ..... shall be punishable..." It will thus appear from the examination of the aforesaid provisions of the Act that what is rendered penal is the act of prostitution or other acts incidental to the act of prostitution. Sec.2 (f) of the Act contains a definition of the expression "prostitution" in the following terms :- " Prostitution means the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind." It is clear from this definition, that, in order to constitute prostitution, the act of the female must be an act of offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse and that this must be for some consideration or hire, whether in money or in kind. In other words, it is not enough to constitute prostitution within the meaning of the Act to offer the feminine body for promiscuous sexual intercourse, but it must be further established that such offering was for hire which might be either in money or in kind. It must also be recognised that in most cases these two ingredients of prostitution can only be established by some circumstantial evidence, because direct evidence is usually impossible to obtain in offences of this nature. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the two male respondents, who were arrested by the police while they were on the point of ascending the steps of the Kotha in question, were out to procure or attempting to procure the female respondents, or any of them, for the purpose of prostitution, or whether they were persons with whom such prostitution was being carried on in the premises in question. In other words, the question is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the male respondents were attempting to procure the female respondents for indulging in sexual intercourse with them in consideration of some remuneration which they proposed to pay to them either in cash or in kind. Upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the most that can be said is that the male respondents, while they were passing on the road, were, being attracted by the persons and dirty demeanour of the three female respondents, ascending the staircase, but their attempt was foiled by their sudden arrest by the police. They may have prepared themselves for indulging in sexual intercourse with one or the other of the female respondents, but they were prevented from making any attempt to do so on account of the intervention by the police. It may as well be that before actually coming in contact with the female respondents, the male respondents might have changed their minds and turned away from there without having any sexual intercourse with any of them. What is of greater importance is that there is no material on record which might lead to any inference that the male respondents had any intention of paying any hire, either in money or in kind, in consideration of the alleged attempt of indulging in sexual intercourse. There is practically no evidence on record that cither of the two male respondents had any money in their possession which they could have paid to the female respondents, or to any one else on their behalf, by way of hire. It is only P. W. 5 who has said in cross-examination that as a result of the personal search of the male respondents, some amount of cash was recovered, though he could not say what the amount was or what happened to it. It is not possible to rely upon this part of the evidence of P. W. 5, because it has not been supported by any of the other members of the raiding party and there is no seizure list on record relating to the recovery of any incriminating article from the person of either of the male respondents or the female respondents. It is not the prosecution case that the male respondents had any article which they could have offered by way of hire in consideration of having sexual inter-course with any of the female respondents. Therefore, one of the essential requirements of the offence of prostitution has not been made out against the male respondents namely that they had thought of paying any hire for indulging in sexual intercourse with the female respondents. It must follow that neither of the two charges, under Sec. 5 (1) (a) and Section 7 (1) of the Act, has been brought home to the male respondents beyond all manner of doubt. 6. The prosecution case against the female respondents also depends upon proof of the fact that it was for hire, in money or in kind, that they had proposed to offer their body for promiscuous sexual intercourse. Under Section 8 (a) of the Act, their dirty demeanour or wilful exposure of their persons could only be incriminating if such act is proved to have been indulged in for the purpose of deriving some gain, whether in money or in kind, by offering their person for promiscuous sexual intercourse. Under the law, neither sexual intercourse nor promiscuous intercourse is by itself an offence. The offence consists in committing such act or acts for hire, whether in money or in kind. In re Ratnamala, AIR 1962 Mad 31 , it was pointed out by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court that the Act aims at the suppression of commercialised vice, and not at the penalisation of the individual prostitute, or of prostitution in itself. In other words, it is really the passing of consideration, whether in money or in kind, accompanying the act of offering a feminine body for promiscuous intercourse, which the Act seeks to penalise. In the instant case, I have already pointed out that there is no evidence that the two male respondents, who were attracted by the person or persons and dirty demeanour of the female respondents, had anything in their possession which they could have offered by way of hire, whether in money or in kind, to any of the female respondents. In the instant case, I have already pointed out that there is no evidence that the two male respondents, who were attracted by the person or persons and dirty demeanour of the female respondents, had anything in their possession which they could have offered by way of hire, whether in money or in kind, to any of the female respondents. There is also no evidence to show that it was necessarily with the expectation of some remuneration that the three female respondents were inviting the passers-by, even if they were doing so for the purpose of indulging in promiscuous sexual intercourse. There is no evidence to show that any of these three female respondents were carrying on the practice of prostitution from before the date of the present occurrence in that they were in the habit of inviting strangers to their premises for having sexual intercourse with them. It is possible that they may have been behaving shamelessly for mere fun; but unless there is some material to lead to the inference that they expected to be remunerated for their act of offering their bodies for promiscuous sexual intercourse, no conclusion can necessarily follow that their actions amounted to prostitution within the meaning of the Act. In the Madras case referred to above, a sum of Rs. 40.00 had been proved to have been paid by the male accused to the mother of the female accused with whom he had found to have indulged in sexual intercourse. In the present case, far from there being any proof of passing of any consideration, there is no evidence even to lead to the inference that any consideration was in contemplation of the female respondents who were out to offer their bodies for promiscuous sexual intercourse. The offences under Sections 8 (a) and 7 (1) of the Act have, therefore, not been satisfactorily brought home to the female respondents as well. 7. So far as the offence under Section 7 (2) of the Act is concerned, I find no material on the record to show that the premises in question was being used for following the trade of prostitution. I may refer in this context to the admitted case of the prosecution which is to the effect that nothing incriminating was recovered as a result of the search of the Kotha in question. I may refer in this context to the admitted case of the prosecution which is to the effect that nothing incriminating was recovered as a result of the search of the Kotha in question. The search list (exhibit 1), which is on the record, mentions "nothing was recovered". Therefore, there is no material to lead to the inference that the premises in question was being used for practising the trade of prostitution or that prostitution for consideration had been or was being carried on there. The requirements of Section 7 (2) of the Act have, therefore, not been fulfilled upon the materials on the record. 8. In the view which I have taken, I do not consider it necessary to refer to the evidence adduced in support of the defence case set up by the various respondents. In my opinion, no ground bas been made out for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.