Brothel Customer Can Be Booked Under Immoral Traffic Act : Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court, in a significant order, held that a customer at a brothel be booked under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITP Act). In the Abhijith v. State of Kerala case, Justice PG Ajithkumar observed that even though the ITP Act does not specifically say customers are punishable, the “procure” in the law can mean someone who “obtains” someone for prostitution (not just someone who brings them in). Since customers “obtain” the sexual services of a person, they are “procuring” under the law.
“The principal object of the statute mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons is to prevent the commercialization of vices and trafficking among women and girls. The meaning of ‘procure’ given in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is to get possession of or to obtain something. If the meaning of the word ‘procure’ is understood in the context of the aforesaid objective of the statute, the person who gets or obtains domain over a person for the purpose of prostitution has to be said to procure a person for the purpose of prostitution. In that view of the matter, a consumer also comes within the purview of Section 5 of the ITP Act,” the Court explained in its judgement.
The Keral High Court delivered the judgement while considering a criminal revision petition moved by an accused in a crime registered by the police alleging offences under Sections 3 (keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be kept as a brothel), 4 (living on the earnings of prostitution), 5 (procuring, inducing, or taking a person for prostitution), and 7 (prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places) of the ITP Act, as he was visiting the brothel.
The petitioner filed a discharge application with a magistrate court before moving to the High Court against the decision, as his application was dismissed by the magistrate court.
Considering the provisions of the ITP Act and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court discharged the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3, 4, and 7, while holding that the petitioner is liable to be charged with the offence under Section 5.
