<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that a company can be punished under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITP Act) only if it has permitted the use of the premises as a brothel with knowledge and is a party to such usage.</p>.<p>The court observed this in a recent judgement while quashing proceedings against a Bengaluru-based real estate company and one of its directors.</p>.<p>The case was registered on July 8, 2022, after the staff of Central Crime Branch (CCB) conducted a surprise raid on the premises owned by the petitioner company at Binnamangala 1st stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. The CCB raid was targeting a Spa in the name and style of "Aira Spa and Salon" in the basement of the building. Subsequently, an FIR was registered under the provisions of ITP Act against two persons running the Spa and also against the petitioner company, which owns the building.</p>.<p>The petitioners contended that an agreement was entered into dated October 14, 2021, with the other two accused in the FIR, who run the Spa. They claimed that the usage of the premises was for lawful purposes.</p>.<p>The court said that Section 3 of ITP Act mandates knowledge on the part of the company of such activity being carried out in the premises that it owns. "It is accused numbers 1 and 2 (who ran the spa) who will have to answer the issue and not the petitioners herein who on 14-10-2021 have leased out the said premises. The petitioners are neither the owners of Spa nor partners of Spa.</p>.<p>The owner of Spa uses the premises for the purpose which would become an offence under the Act. The Company, owner of the premises, cannot be said to be having knowledge of what is happening in the Spa. Therefore, it is for accused Nos 1 and 2 to answer the allegation and permitting further proceedings against the petitioners/owners of the building would become an abuse of the process of law," the court said.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that a company can be punished under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITP Act) only if it has permitted the use of the premises as a brothel with knowledge and is a party to such usage.</p>.<p>The court observed this in a recent judgement while quashing proceedings against a Bengaluru-based real estate company and one of its directors.</p>.<p>The case was registered on July 8, 2022, after the staff of Central Crime Branch (CCB) conducted a surprise raid on the premises owned by the petitioner company at Binnamangala 1st stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. The CCB raid was targeting a Spa in the name and style of "Aira Spa and Salon" in the basement of the building. Subsequently, an FIR was registered under the provisions of ITP Act against two persons running the Spa and also against the petitioner company, which owns the building.</p>.<p>The petitioners contended that an agreement was entered into dated October 14, 2021, with the other two accused in the FIR, who run the Spa. They claimed that the usage of the premises was for lawful purposes.</p>.<p>The court said that Section 3 of ITP Act mandates knowledge on the part of the company of such activity being carried out in the premises that it owns. "It is accused numbers 1 and 2 (who ran the spa) who will have to answer the issue and not the petitioners herein who on 14-10-2021 have leased out the said premises. The petitioners are neither the owners of Spa nor partners of Spa.</p>.<p>The owner of Spa uses the premises for the purpose which would become an offence under the Act. The Company, owner of the premises, cannot be said to be having knowledge of what is happening in the Spa. Therefore, it is for accused Nos 1 and 2 to answer the allegation and permitting further proceedings against the petitioners/owners of the building would become an abuse of the process of law," the court said.</p>
