Order.- The first petitioner herein was charged under section 3(1) and convicted under section 4 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The second petitioner herein was charged and convicted under section 7 (1) of the above Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The prosecution case is that P.W. 2 was sent as a decoy with a sum of Rs. 100 and P.W. 2 gave it to the second accused who, in turn, handed it over to the first accused. Subsequently, P.Ws. 1 and 3 had been to the house where P.W. 2 and accused 1 and 2 were and knocked at the door. They found P.W. 2 and the second accused together and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (P.W, 3) seized the sum of Rs. 100 from the first accused. The Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, believing the evidence of prosecution, convicted the accused as stated above. 3. Mr. Coelho, learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused brought to my notice section 15 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, and read sub-clause 2 therein. It has been specifically mentioned that “before making a search under sub-section (1) of the said section, the Special Police Officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. Admittedly, there is no compliance with this mandatory provision contained in the Act. Mr. Coelho cited a decision of this Court in Nangal N.V. Rajendran and Vasantha1, rendered by Mr. Justice K.N. Mudaliar, wherein the learned Judge has held that the provision under section 15 (2). of the Act must be satisfied to make a search a legal one. Section 4 (1) of the Act states that “any person over the age of eighteen years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution of a woman or girl shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”. Section 4 (1) of the Act states that “any person over the age of eighteen years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution of a woman or girl shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”. The recovery of the sum of Rs. 100 cannot be taken as proved inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions to section 15 (2). Unless the sarre is proved, the conviction under section 4 (1) of the Act cannot be imposed upon the first accused. In that view, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the first accused for an offence under section 4 (1) of the Act are set aside. 4. As regards the second accused, Mr. Coelho, learned Counsel for the accused, states that there is no corroboration for the alleged offences stated to have been committed by the second accused. Section 7 (1) of the Act stated that “Any woman or girl who carries on prostitution, and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on in any premises...... shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months.” Section 2 (f) of the Act defines “prostitution” to mean “the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind”. Except the decoy in this case, who is P.W. 2, none of the witnesses speak to the fact that there was sexual intercourse between P.W. 2 and accused 2. The Assistant Commissioner (P.W. 3) has not seized any of the clothes or the bed-sheets available and proved it, through chemical analysis or medical evidence that there was actually sexual intercourse between P.W. 2 and the second accused at the relevant time. This aspect of proof was also considered by Mr. Justice K. N. Mudaliyar Dhanalakshmi, In re.2 The learned Judge has descried the method of proof without proper corroboration. On identical facts like this, the learned Judge has held that the offence under section 7 (1) of the Act has not been proved in that case. This aspect of proof was also considered by Mr. Justice K. N. Mudaliyar Dhanalakshmi, In re.2 The learned Judge has descried the method of proof without proper corroboration. On identical facts like this, the learned Judge has held that the offence under section 7 (1) of the Act has not been proved in that case. That principle enunciated in that case is clear and applying the very same principle, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence spoken to by P.W. 2 i.e., the decoy in this case, by corroborative evidence. Unless the decoy is corroborated, I am afraid no conviction can be imposed upon the accused in such type of cases. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the second accused are set aside. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged. The bail bonds executed by them shall be cancelled.