27. It is interesting to note the relevant provisions of the said Act, which go to show that the purpose and the object of the Act is not to abolish the prostitution or the prostitute. There is no provision under the law which makes prostitution per se a criminal offence or punishes a person because he indulges in prostitution. What is punishable under the Act is sexual exploitation or abuse of person for commercial purpose and to earn the bread thereby, except where a person is carrying on prostitution in a public place as provided in Section 7 or when a person is found soliciting or seducing another person in view of Section 8 of the said Act. The record does not reveal nor there is a charge against the victims - petitioners that they were indulged in prostitution as defined in Section 2(f) of the said Act. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were seducing any person for the purpose of prostitution nor there is any material to show that they were running a brothel. It seems that the learned Magistrate has been swayed away while passing the impugned order by the fact that the petitioners belong to a particular caste . It is equally important to note that the petitioners victims are major and, therefore, have a right to reside at the place of their choice, to move freely throughout the territory of India and to choose their own vocation as enshrined in Part III of fundamental rights of the Constitution of India. The learned Magistrate, before passing the impugned order ought to have considered the willingness and consent of the victims before ordering their detention in the protective home. The orders impugned dated 19.10.2019 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon and the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi therefore, need to be quashed as the same are bad in law. =
