Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, mandates a sentence of imprisonment for a first offense, with a minimum term of one year.

Headnote:
SUPPRESSION OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC IN WOMEN AND GIRLS ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3(1) - MANDATORY SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR FIRST OFFENCE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent was convicted under Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for keeping a brothel. The Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 1,500 but did not pass a sentence of imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction but enhanced the fine to Rs. 2,000. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Magistrate was obligated to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment of one year.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that Section 3(1) of the Act mandates a sentence of imprisonment for a first offense, with a minimum term of one year. The Court found that the use of the word "punishable" in the section does not confer discretion on the Court to impose a fine instead of imprisonment. The Court also held that the proviso to Section 3(1), which requires the Court to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment of three months in the absence of special reasons, further restricts the Court's discretion.
Issues: Whether Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, mandates a sentence of imprisonment for a first offense, or whether the Court has discretion to impose a fine instead.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 3(1) of the Act strictly, holding that the use of the word "punishable" does not confer discretion on the Court to impose a fine instead of imprisonment. The Court also found that the proviso to Section 3(1) further restricts the Court's discretion by requiring a minimum sentence of imprisonment of three months in the absence of special reasons.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and held that the Magistrate was obligated to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment of one year on the respondent. However, the Court took into account the State's statement that it would not insist on the respondent going to jail and left the matter where it was.

Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J. : In this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay the short point for consideration is whether it is obligatory upon the Court which convicts a person of an offence under S. 3 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Trafic in Women and Girls Act. 1956 to pass a sentence of imprisonment where the conviction is, in respect of a first offence, for a term not less than one year and not merely to a sentence of fine. The Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, held the respondent guilty of an offence under S. 3 (1) of the Act for keeping a brothel or allowing the premises in his occupation to be used as a brothel and passed a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,500 but did not pass a sentence of imprisonment. The respondent was also found guilty of an offence under S. 4 (1) of the Act for living on the earning of prostitution and sentenced by him to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The respondent challenged his conviction in respect of each of the two offences as well as the sentences awarded to him. The High Court affirmed his conviction for these offences. The State preferred an application for revision before the High Court for enhancement of the sentences which was heard along with the appeal. It was contended on behalf of the State that it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to pass the minimum sentence of imprisonment against the respondent in respect of the offence as provided under S. 3(1) of the Act. It was also contended that though there was no obligation on the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment in respect of the offence under S. 4 (1) of the Act, sentence awarded by him was inadequate. The High Court enhanced the sentence of fine in respect of the offence under S. 3 (1) to a sum of Rs. 2,000. In so far as the other offence was concerned the High Court set aside the sentence of fine and instead directed that the respondent be released on his entering into a bond for a sum of Rs. 2,000 under S. 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years.

The provisions of S. 3 (1) of the Act read thus :

"Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees".

The High Court took the view that the word "punishable" in the aforesaid section instead of "punished" necessarily postulates a certain descretion on the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment or a sentenced of fine or both. The High Court felt that there was no escape from the construction in view of the interpretation put by the full Bench of that Court as to the meaning to be adopted in view of the use of the word "punishable" in prescribing a punishment". The decision relied upon by the High Court is Emperor v. Peter D Souza, AIR 1949 Bom 41 (FB) That was a case under Section 43 (1) of the Bombay Abkari Act, 5 of 1878. The provision which the Full Bench had to construe was substituted for the original provision by Bombay Act 29 of 1947. The original provision was that a person "shall on conviction, be punished for each such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both," The Amending Act, 1947 substituted for his the following provision.

"Shall on conviction, be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to Rs.1000 ;

Provided that in the absence of special reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document