Dismissed

Sadhu Sharan Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC4 Aug 2014CR. MISC./2610/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order sealing a hotel under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court dismissed the application, holding that sealing was justified even if the premises did not belong to the petitioner, as they were used for flesh trade. The case was deemed fit for sealing the premises.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the sealing order was dismissed; the sealing order of the premises stands.

Sadhu Sharan Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar — Property and Title | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2610 of 2014

¶2

Arising out of P.S. Case No. -335 Year- 2013 Thana - LAKHISARAI District- LAKHISARAI

¶3

=================================================== Sadhu Sharan Gupta Son of Late Ram Lakhan Gupta Resident of Jay Nagar Lal Pahari, P.S.- Kabiya (Lakhisarai), District- Lakhisarai.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, APP.

¶5

=================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER

¶6

05. 04.08.2014

¶7

The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Lakhisarai (Kabaya) P.S. Case No. 335 of 2013 (Case No. 665M of 2013) by which he has ordered for sealing of Shanti Hotel, Lakhisarai for one year under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

¶8

The case of the Informant is that the Petitioner being a hotel owner along with others was running a flesh trade.

¶9

The submission of the Petitioner is that he is neither owner nor the occupier nor running the business premises and he was merely a person who had entered the hotel to eat and, therefore, he should not be prosecuted. The further submission is that the Petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2610 of 2014 (5) dt.04-08-2014

¶11

¶12

(Prevention) Act, 1956 and, therefore, the hotel should not

¶13

have been directed to be sealed.

¶14

A Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State submitting therein that the hotel belongs to the wife of the Petitioner and there was no illegality in sealing of the premises under Section 18 of the Act.

¶15

Considering that even if the premises did not belong to the Petitioner but since it was being used for flesh trade, in my view, it was in the fitness of things that the SDM, Lakhisarai passed an order sealing the premises.

¶16

In view of such, the application is dismissed.

¶17

(Anjana Prakash, J.)

¶18

Vikash/-

¶19

U T

Sadhu Sharan Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Sharan Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Karan Raj Vs The State Of Bihar

Shyama Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Ravindra Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Lalmuni Devi and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Fariuddin Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.