Mir Siadat Ali Khan, J.
1. In this revision petition we have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties. The revision petitioners, Papamma and Laxamma, were prosecuted under the Hyderabad Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act No. XLIX of 1952.
2. The question requiring consideration is whether this Act No. XLIX of 1952 has been extended to the place of occurrence, Alwal. Section 2 of the Act provides that Government may from time to time by Notification in the Jareeda apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to whole or any portion of the State of Hyderabad. It was conceded by the learned senior Government Advocate that no such Notification has been issued. The only Notification issued is Notification No. S.P.L. (L)/13-LW(6) dated 31-7-1953 in which it is provided that the Raj Pramukh is pleased to direct that with effect from 1st of August 1953 all the provisions of Act No. XLIX of 1952 shall apply to the Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
Clearly Alwal is not within the Municipal limits of the Cities of Hyderabad or Secunderabad. Hence, in the absence of such a Notification the relevant Sections (4) or (8) under which the revision petitioners have been prosecuted not appear to have any bearing. Section (4) provides that any person who keeps or manages or acts or assists in the management of a brothel shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 2 years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both.
Thus, the revision petitioner Papamma may have kept a brothel house and managed it and the revision petitioner Laxamma may have helped her and assisted her in the running of the management, still the liability can be attached to them if Section (4) applies to Alwal. As already stated there is no Notification of the Government in the Jareeda which extend the application of the Act to Alwal and, therefore, no liability under Section (4) of Act No. XLIX of 1952 can attach to the revision petitioners.
3. The revision petitioners were also prosecuted under Section (8) of the Act. The gist of this Section is that any person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of another person is proved to be living with or to be habitually in the company of a person living in prostitution or to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a person living in prostitution in such a manner as to show that such person is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of the prostitution of another person. Clause (3) of this Section (8) runs as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2. this Section shall not be applied except to the Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad or a Municipality constituted under the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committees Act, 1951, or an area situated within three miles of the limits of such cities or municipality.
Evidently, Section 8 will also apply and the revision, petitioners Papamma and Laxamma can only be held guilty of living on the earnings of prostitution as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses if the Act and its Section (8) is extended to Alwal, It was, however, contended that having regard to the wording of Clause (3) quoted above that as by Notification No. 245 dated 21-12-1951 published in Part-I-D of the Gazette-Ordinary, Vol. 83 No. 27 of 3rd July 1952, Alwal is at serial 6 on page 42 of Schedule (A) attached to the Notification and it has thus been declared a municipal town and, therefore, liability attaches to the revision petitioners. The contention is that having regard to the words 'notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2' even if the Act No. XLIX of 1952 is not extended to Alwal as the place of occurrence is within Municipal limits of Alwal under Clause (3) of Section 6, liability shall be attached to the revision-petitioners.
We are unable to agree to this contention. When the Act itself is not applied to Alwal it is difficult to hold that its Section 8 applies. The purport of Clause (3) of Section 8 appears to be that even where an Act is applied to an area Section 8 (3) will only apply to an area within the 3 miles of municipal limit. Beyond this Clause (3) does not extend.
4. For all the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The judgment of the Sessions Court, Hyderabad District, is set aside.
5. This order will govern the other connected petition.