The Karnataka High Court ruled that individuals involved in prostitution cannot be prosecuted under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, emphasizing the law does not intend punishment for the victims. The decision arose from a case where accused persons challenged proceedings against them based on this interpretation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: Recently, The Karnataka High Court has declared that individuals subjected to prostitution cannot be penalized under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. This clarification came through a judgment by a Single Bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who emphatically stated that the law does not prescribe punishment for the victims themselves.
The case came to the fore when the accused, involved in a criminal petition, questioned the ongoing proceedings against them at the Trial Court under Section 5 of the said Act. Deliberating on the provisions of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, Justice Nagaprasanna elucidated-
“Section 5 of the Act does not suggest that a woman who is a victim of prostitution should face punishment for offenses under this provision.”
This pivotal observation highlights the judiciary’s stance towards protecting the rights and dignity of individuals coerced into prostitution rather than criminalizing them.
Further elaborating on the legal interpretation, Justice Nagaprasanna added-
“It clearly states that any person who procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl for prostitution would be liable for prosecution.”
This statement not only clarifies the intent of the law but also shifts the focus towards those who perpetuate and profit from the exploitation of vulnerable individuals.
ALSO READ: Section 498A IPC Being Misused : Jharkhand High Court
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Kumara put forth arguments that reinforced the non-punitive nature of the law towards victims. On the other side, Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesh represented the respondents, emphasizing the need for strict enforcement against those who violate the provisions of the Act by engaging in the procurement and exploitation of individuals for prostitution.
Background of the Case
In 2013, a Police Sub-Inspector attached to the crime wing of Kundapura Police Station received information during an investigation that some girls were being illegally transported from Udupi to Goa in a tempo traveller. The intent was to exploit them in the business of prostitution. The vehicle was intercepted on National Highway 66. Upon interception, it was revealed that accused no. 1, along with accused no. 9, were transporting the petitioner (accused no. 8) and others to engage them in prostitution by paying them Rs. 10,000 each.
Following this incident, a crime was registered, and the Police, after thorough investigation, filed a charge sheet against all the accused, including the petitioner, who was listed as accused no. 8. The concerned Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and registered a case.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was a victim of prostitution at the hands of the other accused and therefore should not be prosecuted. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner was coerced into the situation and did not willingly participate in the illegal activities. The plea was based on the premise that prosecuting the petitioner would be unjust as she was being transported for the purpose of engaging her in prostitution.
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, noted the severity of the allegations. In its detailed observation, the Court stated-
“It is on record that the petitioner was being transported for the purpose of engaging in the business of prostitution. The allegation against the petitioner falls under Section 5 of the Act, which carries punishment.”
This statement highlighted the Court’s acknowledgment of the documented evidence against the petitioner and the gravity of the charges under the 1956 Act. The Court was firm in its stance that being transported for prostitution, regardless of the petitioner’s claim of victimhood, constituted a serious offence.
Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, deals with procuring, inducing, or taking a person for the sake of prostitution. The law is stringent and aims to curb human trafficking and exploitation, ensuring that those involved in such activities face legal consequences.
The Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings against a victim of prostitution, emphasizing that prosecuting such individuals would be an abuse of the process of law. The court referred to the case of Kajal Mukesh Singh v. The State of Maharashtra, underscoring that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA) does not penalize victims of prostitution but targets those exploiting them for commercial purposes.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Examines Section 6A of Citizenship Act
The case revolved around the interpretation and application of PITA. The High Court highlighted that the primary objective of the Act is to curb sexual exploitation for commercial gain, not to penalize those forced into prostitution. The court drew attention to its earlier ruling in Kajal Mukesh Singh v. The State of Maharashtra, stating that allowing the prosecution of victims under this Act would inherently be an abuse of legal processes.
“As stated, the provisions and objectives of the Act do not aim to abolish prostitution or penalize prostitutes. There is no provision in the law that penalizes victims engaged in prostitution. What is punishable is the sexual exploitation for commercial gain or livelihood of such individuals.”
-the court emphasized.
The case brought before the High Court involved a petitioner who had been implicated in proceedings under PITA. The petitioner contended that being a victim of prostitution, they should not be subject to prosecution under the Act. The court, after examining the relevant provisions and previous judicial interpretations, agreed with this stance.
The court observed-
“If the trial is allowed to proceed further, it would amount to an abuse of the legal process and lead to clear injustice.”
This statement reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that victims of prostitution are not further victimized by the legal system meant to protect them.
