JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - Respondent No. 1 Gobinda Pradhan and two women, viz., Respondent No. 2 Bahidei Hantala and Respondent No. 3 Phulmati Nag stand charged u/s 7(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for carrying on prostitution in a public place. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were further charged under Sections 4(1) (2) and 8 of the Act for living on the earnings of prostitution and for seducing and soliciting for purposes of prostitution. Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar was prosecuted for having committed offences u/s 3(1) of the Act for keeping and maintaining a brothel, u/s 4(1) of the Act for living on the earnings of prostitution, and u/s 5(1) of the Act for procuring women/girls for the sake of prostitution. 2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows: The sub-Inspector of Police Dandapani Patnaik (P.W. 7) lodged a written report before the then Officer in-charge of Jeypore police station on 4-10-1975 to the effect that accused Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar was keeping a brothel at Narayantota Sahi at Jeypore by procuring females from outside and he and the females engaged by him were living entirely on the earnings of the prostitution. According to the prosecution Narayantota Sahi is a public place and prostitution is carried on openly and the prostitutes tempt and attract the passers by, by gestures and exposures of their body. Public religious places of worship like Hanuman temple, Gurudwar are situated within a distance of fifty yards from the house of Respondent No. 4. The report of the Sub-Inspector was treated as first information report and has been marked as Ext. 1. As the Officer-in-charge of the police station had no power to investigate into the offence, the Deputy Inspector of Police (P.W. 4) took up investigation and in the night of occurrence the house of Respondent No. 4 was raided and it was found that Respondent No. 1 Gobinda Pradhan was in a compromising position with Respondent No. 3 Dhulmati and Respondent No. 2 Bahidei was found in a compromising position with one Hari Bag and they were naked at that time. It is the prosecution case that the house belongs to Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar and he was maintaining a brothel, allowing his premises to be used as brothel living on the earnings of prostitution and was procuring/inducing women/girls for the sake of prostitution. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and all the four accused persons were tried in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore who acquitted all the accused-Respondents. The plea of Respondents 1 to 3 was denial, Accused Respondent Gada Sagar took the plea of alibi. 3. In order to prove the case prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is the Circle Inspector of Police, P.W. 4 is the D.S.P. who took up investigation, P.W. 5 is the neighbour of accused Gada Sagar, P.W. 6 is the Officer-in-charge of Jeypore police station, P.W. 7 is the S.I. of Police and P.Ws. 2 and 3 are Members of the locality. P. Ws. 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile and were cross examined by the prosecution. P.W. 5 who is an independent witness also did not support the prosecution case at all. The entire prosecution case depends on the evidence of the police witnesses. The learned Magistrate has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that there are places of public religious worship within a radius of 200 yards from the house of Respondent No. 4 where the alleged prostitution had taken place. He further held that the ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act have not been established in this case. It may be mentioned here that the case so far as accused Hari Bag, who was found with Respondent No. 2 in a compromising position, is concerned was split up and the case proceeded against the four accused-Respondents. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, submitted that there is no evidence that the house of accused Gada Sagar was used as a brothel for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. He further submitted that the accused-Respondents were engaged in prostitution has not been established. He further submitted that the accused-Respondents were engaged in prostitution has not been established. 'Prostitute and 'Prostitution has been defined under Sub-sections (e) and (f) of Section 2 of the Act which are quoted below: 2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (e) "prostitute" means a female who offers her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind: (f) "prostitution" means the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind. According to Mr. Mohanty there is no evidence that the female accused persons offered their body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind. Even if it be so, merely because the female accused and the male accused persons were in a compromising position, will not constitute an offence under the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that u/s 15(2) of the Act before making search 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. But in this case no female witness has been called. 4. In reply, learned Additional Government Advocate relied on a decision reported in Krishnamurthy alias Tailor Krishnan v. Public Prosecutor, Madras AIR 1967 S.C. 567 wherein it has been held. It may be true that a place used once for the purpose of prostitution may not be a brothel but it is a question of fact as to what conclusion should be drawn about the yse of a place about which information had been received that it was being used as a brothel to which a person goes and freely asks for girl, where the person is shown girls to select from and where he does engage a girl for the purpose of prostitution. The conclusion to be derived from these circumstances about the place and the person keeping it can be nothing else that than the place was being used as a brothel and the person in charge was so keeping it. It is not necessary that there should be evidence of repeated visits by persons to the place for the purpose of prostitution. It is not necessary that there should be evidence of repeated visits by persons to the place for the purpose of prostitution. A single instance coupled with the surrounding circumstances is sufficient to establish both that the place was being used as a brothel and that the person alleged was so keeping it. We are of opinion that the facts found in the present case justify the conclusion that the Appellant was keeping a brothel at his house. The Appellants conviction u/s 3(1) of the Act is therefore correct. In the above case P.W. 2 as a decoy was given three marked 10 rupee currency notes by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Vigilance). He went to Appellant's place and was shown three girls and he selected one of them and paid those marked currency notes to the Appellant. He and the girl then went inside a room and thereafter the police party raided the house and found the d coy and the girl in a dishevelled condition in that room and the marked currency notes were recovered from the possession of the Appellant. So there was evidence coupled with the surrounding circumstances to hold that the place was being used as a brothel and that the person alleged was so keeping it. But the facts of the present case are entirely different. Even the police witnesses say that they had no knowledge that the place was habitually being used as a brothel. To add to this, the Ward Members, P.Ws. 2 and 3 and P.W. 5 who is a gentleman of the locality did not support the prosecution case and they are the best persons to know what was happening in their locality. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the argument of both parties and the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 7(1) of the Act in this case and I see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed