Judgment :- The accused in C.C. 397/89 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are : The respondent has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'SIT Act') and under section 353 I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : On 21-10-1987, A1 to A4 procured A7 for the purpose of prostitution and brought her to Room No. 7 of the Circuit House for prostitution, after paying Rs. 1,000/- to A7, A5 and A6, who are employees of the Circuit House, allowed the other accused for the said purpose. At about 7.00 p.m., the police party searched the above room, when A5 and A6 were found to be watching, from outside the room. It was found that A1 was having sexual intercourse with A7, at that time. There was some whisky in a bottle in the room. A2 to A4 where found to be holding glass tumbler, containing liquor. Further A1 to A4 were found to have consumed liquor. None of them have licence to possess or consume liquor. When the police party were about to arrest the accused, A4 obstructed them in the discharge of their duties. Hence the charge-sheet. 3. Mr. A Balaguru, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, whould submit that the allegations made in the charge-sheet do not make out a case of "prostitution" and so none of the offences under SIT Act are made out. He would further submit that the allegations do not make out a case of "procuring" any person for the purpose of prostitution and on that ground the offence under section 5(1)(a) of SIT Act cannot be sustained. He would further submit that they are not liable to be punished for offence under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, as the permit system under Section 20 of the Act has now been repealed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, making consumption and possession for personal consumption not an offence. He would further submit that the evidence regarding offence under Section 353 I.P.C. is not acceptable. I have heard Mr. He would further submit that the evidence regarding offence under Section 353 I.P.C. is not acceptable. I have heard Mr. E. Raja, the learned Government Advocate, on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. I shall first take up the offence punishable under SIT Act. Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act reads as follows : "5. Procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution. - (1) Any peson who - (a) procures or attempts to procure a (person) whether with of without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution;" Section 7(1)(a) of SIT Act reads as follows : "7. Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. - (1) Any person, who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on, in any premises - (a) which are within the area or areas, notified under sub-section (3)." Section 7(2)(a) of SIT Act reads as follows : "Any person who - (a) being the keeper of any public place knowingly permits prostitutes for purposes of their trade to resort to or remain in such place." The word "prostitution" occurs in all the above offences. "Prostitution" is defined in Section 2(f) of SIT Act and it reads as follows : "Prostitution" means the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes and the expression "prostitute" shall be construed accordingly". The definition "prostitution" would show that it means sexual exploitation for commercial purposes. 5. Now I shall proceed to consider the evidence in this regard. Govindan, Sub-Inspector of Police, is the first witness, for the prosecution. He has stated that on 21-10-1987, in Door No. 7 in the Circuit House at Palayamkottai, he heard laughter and other sounds and that he enquired Karuppiah and Nainar (A5 and A6) and they said that accused 1 or 4 have taken the room and they are staying there from 5.00 p.m. and that they gave Rs. 10/- each for not allotting it to others. He has further stated that he had informed A.S.P. and after some time, the police party along with Woman Police came that they inspected the said Room Nos. 7 and A5 and A6 were standing outside the room. 10/- each for not allotting it to others. He has further stated that he had informed A.S.P. and after some time, the police party along with Woman Police came that they inspected the said Room Nos. 7 and A5 and A6 were standing outside the room. He has further stated that Kalyanasundaram (A1) was having sexual intercourse with Prema (A7) and that Selvaraj (A2) Ganapathy (A3) and Elamathi (A4) were standing each with a glass tumbler, containing liquor and there was an empty whisky bottle nearby. He has further stated that on seeing the police party, A7 tried to run away from the place that she was caught that A1 to A5 were found in a drunken state and all of them were arrested. At the time of effecting arrest, A4 threatened the Inspector and prevented the Inspector from discharging his duties. He has further stated that A7 gave voluntarily a confession statement and in that statement, she said that she had kept Rs. 1,000/- in the bureau of her house and if taken she would produce the same and she took them to her house and produced Rs. 1,000/- from the bureau. The statement given by Samuthirakani, Maria Cracy, Susila and Velusamy are similar. 6. From the above, it emerges that A1 was having sexual intercourse in Room No. 7 in Circuit House. It also emerges that Rupees 1,000/- was recovered from the house of A7. There is absolutely no admissible evidence to show that this sum of Rs. 1,000/- was given for the purpose of the sexual intercourse, so as to bring it within the clause "sexual exploitation for commercial purpose". Though the witnesses have spoken in detail, the contents of the confession statement given by Prema cannot be looked into, excepting to the limited extent that Rs. 1,000/- was seized from the house of Prema. There is no admissible evidence to show that the said Rs. 1,000/- was paid by any one of the accused to her for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Thus, evidence is lacking to show that there was "Prostitution". Only if that is established, the offences under Sections 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of SIT Act would be made out. Since there is no admissible evidence to show that there was "prostitution", the offences under Sections 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of SIT Act cannot stand and they are liable to be quashed. 7. Only if that is established, the offences under Sections 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of SIT Act would be made out. Since there is no admissible evidence to show that there was "prostitution", the offences under Sections 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of SIT Act cannot stand and they are liable to be quashed. 7. I Shall next pass on to the evidence regarding offence under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'TNP Act'). Section 4(1)(a) of TNP Act reads as follows : "4. (1) Whoever - (a) imports, exports transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug". Section 4(1)(j) of TNP Act reads as follows : "consumes of buys" Statements given by PW 1 Govindan would show that A1 to A3 were each having a glass tumbler, containing liquor and that A1 to A4 were in a drunken state. They were taken to the doctor and certificates to drunkenness were given by the doctor, regarding A1 to A5. So there are materials to proceed with for these offences. 8. Regarding offence under section 353 I.P.C., there is evidence to show that A4 prevented the Inspector of Police from discharging his duties as a public servant and hence that cannot be quashed. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed in part and proceedings against the accused for offences under sections 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of SIT Act are quashed. Regarding other offences, the learned Magistrate shall proceed against such of those accused, against whom the other offences are alleged and dispose it of according to law. Order accordingly.