A customer visits a sex worker. Can he automatically be charged with human trafficking? The Telangana High Court has now given a clear answer and explained when criminal liability applies and when it does not.
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, has clarified that a customer of a sex worker cannot be prosecuted for the offence of human trafficking under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court held that a customer may face prosecution under Section 370A(2) IPC if the sex worker is a trafficked person and the customer knew or had reason to believe that she had been trafficked.
The ruling came while deciding a batch of criminal petitions involving persons who were allegedly customers of sex workers. Some petitioners argued that they were merely present near brothel premises and had no role in trafficking or exploitation. FIRs had been registered against them under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, along with Sections 370 and 370A(2) IPC.
The Court examined the scope of Sections 370 and 370A IPC. Section 370 deals with trafficking and punishes persons who recruit, transport, harbour, transfer or receive individuals for exploitation through force, coercion, fraud, abuse of power or similar means. Section 370A(2), on the other hand, punishes a person who knowingly engages a trafficked person for sexual exploitation.
After examining the law, the Bench held:
“i. A customer of a sex worker cannot be prosecuted for trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC;
ii. A customer of a sex worker can be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) of the IPC, provided that such sex worker is a trafficked person and the customer had the knowledge or reason to believe the same; and
iii. Whether mere presence of a person in the vicinity of a brothel house or on premises where the business of prostitution is carried on is sufficient to prosecute a person under Section 370A(2) of the IPC depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, a person can be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) of the IPC, even in the absence of evidence establishing specific acts of sexual exploitation, provided the material on record indicates engagement of a trafficked person for the purpose of sexual exploitation, with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that such person was trafficked.”
The Court noted that the reference before it arose because different benches had expressed varying views on whether customers of sex workers could be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) IPC and whether mere presence in a brothel was enough to attract criminal liability.
The Bench observed that Sections 370 and 370A were introduced through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, based on the recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee. The objective of these provisions was to combat trafficking and protect women and children from exploitation. However, the Court emphasized that the provisions “do not proscribe voluntary sex work”.
The Court referred to a clarification issued by the Justice Verma Committee, which had specifically stated that the amended law was not intended to harass voluntary sex workers or their clients. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, where it was held that voluntary sex work by consenting adults is not illegal and that police should not interfere in such situations.
While answering the question regarding Section 370 IPC, the Bench made it clear that the provision targets traffickers and not customers.
“As can be seen from the text of Section 370 of the IPC, it penalises the offence of “trafficking of person.” It punishes a “trafficker” who, for the purpose of exploitation, recruits, transports, harbours, transfers, or receives a person. The provision does not contemplate the prosecution of a customer of a sex worker. A customer herein is a person who seeks sexual gratification by paying a sex worker for her services. Such a person cannot be termed a “trafficker.” A person who merely visits a brothel house or premises where the business of prostitution is carried on cannot be prosecuted for trafficking. A transaction for sexual services involving only the sex worker and the customer cannot be termed trafficking.”
The Court, however, clarified that a person who arranges or procures the services of a sex worker for someone else may not be treated as a mere customer and could, depending on the facts, face prosecution under Section 370 IPC.
On the issue of Section 370A(2), the Court explained that the provision was introduced to punish the user of trafficked persons rather than the trafficker. According to the Court, the purpose of the law is to punish the demand side of trafficking.
The Bench observed that the term “engages” under Section 370A(2) means hiring or availing the services of a sex worker. Therefore, if a customer engages a trafficked sex worker and has knowledge or reason to believe that she has been trafficked, prosecution under Section 370A(2) can follow.
The Court stressed that mens rea, or guilty knowledge, is an essential requirement. It explained that “knowledge” or “reason to believe” cannot be assumed and must be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts must assess whether a reasonable person would have concluded that the individual being engaged was a trafficked person.
The Bench further stated that factors such as dealing through a pimp, broker, facilitator or brothel manager may be relevant in deciding whether the customer had reason to believe that trafficking was involved. The statement of the sex worker may also help determine whether she was acting voluntarily or under the control of another person.
Importantly, the Court clarified that actual sexual exploitation does not need to take place for Section 370A(2) to apply. The offence is complete if a trafficked person is engaged for sexual exploitation and the accused had the required knowledge or reason to believe that the person was trafficked.
At the same time, the Court reiterated:
“Section 370A(2) of the IPC will not apply in cases where sexual services are offered voluntarily by the sex worker directly to a customer. Voluntary sex workers and their clients cannot be harassed by invoking Section 370A(2) of the IPC.”
The Court also dealt with the question of whether merely being present in a brothel is enough to attract prosecution. It held that presence at such a place may be a relevant circumstance, but it is not sufficient by itself to prosecute a person under Section 370A(2) IPC.
Explaining further, the Bench observed:
“For instance, a person may engage a trafficked person through a pimp or a broker. In such a case, the act of engaging and dealing with the pimp, coupled with the knowledge or reason to believe, is sufficient to attract Section 370A(2) of the IPC. Such person need not be found in the company of the sex worker,” the Court said.
Accordingly, the Telangana High Court answered the reference by holding that customers cannot be prosecuted as traffickers under Section 370 IPC merely for availing services. However, where a trafficked person is engaged and the customer had knowledge or reason to believe that trafficking was involved, prosecution under Section 370A(2) IPC can be sustained. Mere presence at a brothel, without additional evidence showing engagement of a trafficked person and the required knowledge, is not enough to attract criminal liability.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS & SECTIONS MENTIONED
| LAW / SECTION | PURPOSE | HOW IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THIS CASE |
| Section 370 IPC | Punishes human trafficking through recruitment, transport, harbouring, transfer or receipt of persons for exploitation | Court held a customer of a sex worker cannot be treated as a trafficker merely for availing services. |
| Section 370A(2) IPC | Punishes a person who knowingly engages a trafficked person for sexual exploitation | Court held customers can be prosecuted only if the sex worker was trafficked and the customer knew or had reason to believe it. |
| Section 370A(1) IPC | Similar offence involving trafficked minors | Referred while explaining the structure of Section 370A. |
| Sections 3, 4 & 5 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 | Deal with brothel keeping, living on earnings of prostitution and procuring persons for prostitution | Petitioners argued these provisions do not apply to mere customers. Earlier rulings supported that view. |
| Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 | Introduced Sections 370 and 370A IPC | Court noted these provisions were enacted to combat trafficking and sexual exploitation. |
| Section 26 IPC | Defines “Reason to Believe” | Used by Court while explaining mens rea required under Section 370A(2). |
| Sections 143 & 144 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) | Successor provisions corresponding to Sections 370 and 370A IPC | Mentioned by Court as current equivalent provisions. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: Mr. Konda Hemanth Kumar v. State of Telangana & Another (Lead Matter) along with connected batch matters.
- Court: High Court for the State of Telangana
- Bench: Justice K. Lakshman & Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao
- Date of Judgment: 09 June 2026
- Lead Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 4093 of 2024 along with more than 100 connected criminal petitions and Criminal Revision Case No. 935 of 2025.
- Petitioner: Mr. Konda Hemanth Kumar (Accused No.3)
- Respondents: State of Telangana represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Telangana High Court has clearly held that a man cannot be branded a “trafficker” merely because he was alleged to be a customer of a sex worker.
- The Court rejected the tendency of treating every man found near a brothel as a criminal without proving the actual ingredients of trafficking.
- Mere presence at a brothel or nearby premises is not enough for prosecution under Section 370A(2) IPC. Facts and evidence still matter.
- The judgment reinforces that criminal liability cannot be based on assumptions, morality, or stereotypes; knowledge and intent must be proved.
- The Court specifically warned that voluntary sex workers and their clients cannot be harassed by misusing anti-trafficking provisions.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
