Statutory Presumption Under PITA Section 6(2) Triggered Upon Recovery of Minors From Prostitution Premise.

On August 26, 1996, the D.B. Marg Police received information regarding a brothel operating at Rele Building, Mumbai.

A raid was conducted post-midnight (August 27, 1996) by a police team and two panchas, where the Applicant was found in a room with two minor girls.

The Applicant was charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA) and the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the Applicant under Section 6 of PITA, sentencing her to two years RI and a fine.

This conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2003.

The Applicant filed this revision challenging the concurrent findings, alleging material contradictions in witness testimony, lack of an ossification test, and procedural lapses in the raid.

1. Whether there were material contradictions regarding the date of the raid and delay in filing the FIR sufficient to vitiate the prosecution’s case

2. Whether the absence of a formal "ossification test" invalidated the medical officer's finding regarding the victims' minority

3. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 6(2) of PITA was applicable and remained unrebutted by the Applicant

Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, specifically the statutory presumption under Section 6(2), which presumes a person has committed an offence if found with a child in a brothel unless the contrary is proved.

Section 15 of PITA regarding the powers of a Special Police Officer.

The principles in Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which defines the ossification test as a determination based on the fusion of bones via X-ray and notes it is relevant but not solely conclusive.

Standard for revisional jurisdiction from K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, limiting interference to cases of glaring procedural defects or manifest errors of law.

The Court found no merit in the alleged contradictions regarding dates; the discrepancy between August 26 and 27 was logically explained by the raid occurring post-midnight.

The delay in FIR was deemed well-explained by the necessity of medical examinations and Juvenile Board formalities.

The Court rejected the argument against the age verification process, noting that PW-4 (Medical Officer) had clinically examined the girls and relied on X-rays, which fundamentally constitutes an ossification test.

Even with a two-year margin of error, the victims remained minors.

Since the victims were found in the Applicant's custody in a brothel—a fact corroborated by independent panch witness PW-1—the statutory presumption under Section 6(2) of PITA was triggered.

The Applicant failed to lead any evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Court noted that minor discrepancies in testimony are not fatal in trafficking cases given the trauma and fear associated with such heinous crimes.

The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts did not suffer from any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice.

The Revision Application was dismissed, the conviction and sentence were confirmed, and the Trial Court was directed to secure the Applicant's presence to serve the remainder of the sentence.