Maria Kutty alias Thangam [Accused 1 (hereafter referred to as - A1)] kidnapped two young girls [Prosecution Witness 2 (hereafter referred to as - PW 2) and Prosecution Witness 3 (hereafter referred to as - PW 3) from Ooty and took them in a bus to take them to Madras with an intention to engage them in prostitution. The detailed facts of the case are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the High Court judgment.

Upon complaint from the father about his missing girls, the police intercepted the bus in which A1, PW 2 and PW 3 were travelling. The police rescued the victims and arrested A1. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that D. Ethiraj (A2) being the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) at Ooty claiming to be the husband of Maria Kutty abetted the act of kidnapping the two girls from Ooty to Madras.

Both the accused were charge sheeted and tried for offences under Section 5(1)(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Sections 366, 419 and 119 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). After trial, Maria Kutty (A1) was convicted for offence under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act and under Sections 366 and 419 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 5(1)(b); Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 366 of IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 419 of IPC.

D. Ethiraj, DSP (A2) though was acquitted in respect of 5(1)(b) of the Act, was convicted for offences under Sections 366 read with 109, 419 read with 109 and 119 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 366 read with 109 of  IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 419 read with 109 of IPC; and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 119 of IPC.

Challenging their conviction and sentences, both the accused have filed these separate appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos. 62 and 64 of 1992 respectively.

The main arguments advanced by both the appellants was that the evidence relating to the ingredient of Section 5(1)(b) of the Act is lacking and consequently, the other allied offences, namely, the offences under Sections 366, 419 and 119 of IPC cannot be said to be made out.

The High Court analyzed the contentions made by both the appellants and the Government Pleader and discussed in ample detail, the three sets of evidence led by the prosecution to prove the offences for which the appellants (A1 and A2) were tried:

(1) The close association of A1 and A2;

(2) The incidents relating to kidnapping of the witnesses PW 2 and 3 from Ooty in a bus to Madras by A1 with intention to use them for prostitution with the assistance of A2 and securing of girls and arrest of A1;

(3) The various other instances relating to the antecedents and character of A1, who was regularly indulging in procuring girls from various areas for purposes of prostitution.

After appreciating the entire evidence in the case, the High Court did not find any merit in these appeals. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court were confirmed. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals were dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to secure the custody of the appellants/accused in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence.