The appellant was accused of operating a widespread national organised crime network that engaged in the recruitment and transport of women for the purpose of engaging in commercial sexual exploitation (i.e. prostitution). A police sting operation netted a lower-level pimp and two prostitutes with connections to the appellant, and these individuals offered up confessions that, in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence, substantiated the charges against the appellant. It was disclosed that the appellant’s network supplied girls to five star hotels, guest houses and posh colony flats in various cities including Mumbai, Calcutta, Bangalore, etc., and that this prostitution racket had been ongoing since 1985-86.
印度1st Instance:
Court of 1st instance filed charged under sections 3 and 4 of the Mahashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), and sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA). Appellant seeks to challenge the charges.
By this appeal filed under Section 12 of MCOCA, the appellant seeks to assail the order on charge dated 12th October, 2006 and the charge dated 3-11-2006 whereby the learned Special Judge, MCOCA, New Delhi has charged the appellant under Sections 4 and 5 of the ITPA, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5) and Section 4 of the MCOCA and Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC in FIR No. 96/2005.
The appellant primarily contended that the alleged offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the ITPA read with Section 420/120B IPC were not intended by the legislature to be covered within the ambit of the MCOCA, 1999 as extended to Delhi; and that none of the ingredients of the MCOCA were applicable to his case.
Another ground raised by the appellant was with respect to the definition of “prostitution” under the ITPA. The amended definition of 1986 was ‘to prevent the sexual exploitation and abuse of girls’ and hence the act of a major female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind, on her own volition and without any threat, pressure or coercion was not intended to be covered by the present definition. In the absence of an allegation in the FIR that the girls were abused or sexually exploited so as to force them to offer their body for promiscuous sexual intercourse, the offences under Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 as amended till date were not made out against the appellant.
In its judgment the High Court analyzed the various provisions of MCOCA, especially "continuing unlawful activity", "organized crime" and "organized crime syndicate". The court also referred to previous judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the context of the menace of prostitution and the general development of the law pertaining to organized crime including trafficking of women. The court also noted the voluntary vis-à-vis the involuntary nature of prostitution and made several references to ‘abuse’, ‘exploitation’ and ‘violence’ committed on women.
The court held that the present being a case of 'continuing unlawful activity' by an 'organized crime syndicate' with a wide network for illegal trafficking and prostitution, it is not possible to hold that the invocation of MCOCA in the present case was unjustified.
The High Court pronounced that it concurred with the findings of the Special Judge that there is sufficient material for framing of charges against the accused persons under the various provisions of law and a prima facie case is made out against the appellant under ITPA, MCOCA and IPC.
Sections 4 and 5 of the ITPA, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the MCOCA and Section 420 of the IPC in FIR No. 96/2005.
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
KAMALJEET SINGH (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) v. STATE - AAP 28/2007 [2008] INDLHC 272 (29 January 2008)
States that the term “violence” must be construed liberally so as to include violence of a kind that will damage the reputation of women. Internal citation notes that definition of “violence against women” included “trafficking in women”.