JUDGMENT 1. - Though leave to appeal against acquittal of both the accused respondents was granted by this Court, but because Wahida respondent could not be served, therefore this court vide its order dated May 8, 1979 ordered that the appeal against respondent No. 1 Smt. Wahida be consigned to record. Therefore, only the case of accused respondent Sita is to be dealt with. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur, acquitted the accused respondent Sita of the charge under Section 3(2) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter `the Act'). 3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Sita respondent m keeps a brothel within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and used it for the purposes of prostitution for gain. She took Rs. 2/- from one Mohammed Saddique PW 1 and offered one Wahida to him. When Mohd. Saddique was performing sexual intercourse with Wahida, the police party arrived and both he and Wahida were found in compromising position. A charge-sheet was filed against the respondent Sita under section 7(1) of the Act. After trial, both the accused persons were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. 4. `Brothel' is defined under section 2(a) of the Act so as to include any I 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 persons. `Prostitue' is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act and it means a woman who offers her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire whether in . money or in kind. Any person who keeps or maintains or acts or assists in the r keeping and management of a brothel, is liable, to be punished under section 3 of the Act. The question, therefore, is as to where the house where Wahida found in compromising position with PW 1 Mohd. Saddique has been proved to be a brothel within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act. It has come in the statement of Mohd. Saddique that a sum of Rs. 5/- was demanded from him by Sita for offering Wahida, a prostitute, to him for sexual intercourse but ultimately, a sum of Rs. 2/- was settled and he paid Rs. It has come in the statement of Mohd. Saddique that a sum of Rs. 5/- was demanded from him by Sita for offering Wahida, a prostitute, to him for sexual intercourse but ultimately, a sum of Rs. 2/- was settled and he paid Rs. 2/- to Sita and thereafter, he stated that he gave the amount to Wahida. The two rupees note duly signed by the Dy. S. P. was found from beneath the pillow on a cot on which it is alleged that both Mohammed Saddique and Mst, Wahida were found in compromising position. The evidence of Mohd. Saddique as to whether the amount of Rs. 2/- was paid to Sita or Wahida is discrepant. From his statement, therefore, it cannot be said positively that the amount of Rs. 2/- was paid to the accused respondent Sita. Even assuming for the purposes of disposal of this appeal that Wahida offered her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, the question is as to whether it was the accused-respondent Sita who can be said to be keeping or managing or assisting the keeping or managing of a brothel in the house where Wahida was found with Mohammed Saddique in compromising position, within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act. If the evidence of Mohammed Saddique, so far as the delivery of the amount of Rs. 2/- to Sita is excluded for the reasons already stated earlier, there is no other evidence on the basis of which it can be said that it was accused-respondent Sita who was keeping or managing or assisting in keeping or management of a brothel. Sita was not arrested on the spot and apart from the statement of Mohammed Saddique, no other evidence speaks of her presence at the time when police party reached there and Wahida was seen in composing position with PW 1 Mohammed Saddique. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, the learned trial court has extended the benefit of i doubt to Sita. The view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse and it can also not be said that the view is such as no reasonable man could arrive at on the evidence on record. 5. No case for interference is made out. The appeal of the State is, here fore, dismissed. Sd/- Mahendra Bushan, J.No case for interference - State appeal dismissed. *******