Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re Babi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 09, 1971
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/809825

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re Babi and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
1971CriLJ1488

Excerpt

- orderk.n. mudaliyar, j.1. the accusation has been summarised as follows for which the answer given by the petitioner is this:the deputy superintendent of police, tindivanam, has laid a charge-sheet against you for an offence under section 8 (a) of the suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls act, alleging that on 25-3-1969 between 2-15 and 3 p. m. when a. k. thagapillai buildings at kallakuruchi was searched by him you and two others were found in the a, k. t. building and wilfully exposing your person indecently and making gestures and soliciting the public for prostitution. do you plead guilty or not?it is true guilty.the text of section 8 (a) contains words of vital importance, namely 'in any public place or within sight of'; in other words, the woman, who makes a wilful exposure of her person either by words or by gestures, must have been situated either in any public place or within sight of and in such manner as to be be seen or heard from any public place. these ingredients are absent in the body of the accusation for which the petitioners have pleaded guilty. in view of this grave illegality i consider that, in the interests of justice, the petitioners, though they pleaded guilty, are entitled to the benefit of doubt. i have not accepted their plea of guilty in view of the grave defect in the substance of the accusation put to the petitioners.2. the revision cases are allowed and the petitioners are acquitted.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. The accusation has been summarised as follows for which the answer given by the petitioner is this:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, has laid a charge-sheet against you for an offence Under Section 8 (a) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, alleging that on 25-3-1969 between 2-15 and 3 p. m. when A. K. Thagapillai Buildings at Kallakuruchi was searched by him you and two others were found in the A, K. T. Building and wilfully exposing your person indecently and making gestures and soliciting the public for prostitution. Do you plead guilty or not?

It is true Guilty.

The text of Section 8 (a) contains words of vital importance, namely 'in any public place or within sight of'; in other words, the woman, who makes a wilful exposure of her person either by words or by gestures, must have been situated either in any public place or within sight of and in such manner as to be be seen or heard from any public place. These ingredients are absent in the body of the accusation for which the petitioners have pleaded guilty. In view of this grave illegality I consider that, in the interests of justice, the petitioners, though they pleaded guilty, are entitled to the benefit of doubt. I have not accepted their plea of guilty in view of the grave defect in the substance of the accusation put to the petitioners.

2. The revision cases are allowed and the petitioners are acquitted.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial