Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1463 (ORI)

Sakhabul Khan @ Papu v. State of Odisha

2017-12-15

B.K.NAYAK

body2017
ORDER 15.12.2017. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel 2. Order of attachment passed by the Commissioner of Police, Cuttack-Bhubaneswar with a direction for closure of hotel Jannat Palace belonging to the petitioner in exercise of power U/s. 18 (1) (wrongly mentioned as Section 18 (2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has been challenged in this proceeding. 3. Petitioner’s hotel as aforesaid was raided on 19.02.2015 at 7 PM. Some men and women were arrested and rescued and Capital P.S. Case No.56 of 2015 was registered U/ss. 3, 4,5, 6 & 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Simultaneously, the proceeding U/s. 18 (1) was taken up by the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack. 4. It appears from the impugned order that in the proceeding before the Commissioner of Police, in pursuance of notice, the petitioner filed show-cause on 07.11.2016 contending inter alia that his hotel Jannat Palace is beyond 200 metres from Bapuji Nagar UP School and Durga Mandap and therefore, it is not liable to be attached. However, the Commissioner of Police, holding that the hotel itself is a public place and according to Section 2 (h) of the IT (P) Act, it is liable to be attached and, accordingly passed the impugned order. 5. Section 2 (h) of the IT (P) Act defines ‘public place’ meaning any place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public and includes any public conveyance. 6. Section 18 (1) of the Act envisages that the house or room or place which is proposed to be attached must be within a distance of 200 metres from a public place referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act does not contemplate all such places intended for use by or accessible to public. It reads as under : “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. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act does not contemplate all such places intended for use by or accessible to public. It reads as under : “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. (i) which are within the area or areas, notified under Sub-section (3) or, (b) which are within a distance of two hundred metres of 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 Magistrate in the manner prescribed, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months. [(1-A) Where an offence committed under Sub-section (1) is in respect of a child or minor, the person committing the offence shall be punishable with imprisonment or either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or f or a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.” 7. It is, therefore, clear that in terms of Section 7 (1) if house which is used as brother is situated within 200 Metres of any institution place used as public religious worship, educational,hostel, hospital, nursing home or such other public place as notified by the State Government under Clauses (a) or (b) of Section 7 (1), then only order of attachment in terms of Section 18 can be passed. Clause (b) by itself does not include ‘hotel’. It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the State that no notification has been issued by the Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter passing order of attachment of the petitioner’s hotel without any indication as to how it comes within the meaning of Clause (a) or (b) of Section 7 (1), the hotel is not liable to be attached. 9. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned order. The CRLMC is disposed of. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter passing order of attachment of the petitioner’s hotel without any indication as to how it comes within the meaning of Clause (a) or (b) of Section 7 (1), the hotel is not liable to be attached. 9. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned order. The CRLMC is disposed of. A free copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the State. CRLMC disposed of.