STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus JUGAMANDER LAL

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
•· 
D 
• 
E 
F 
T 
• 
G 
H 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
JUGAMANDER LAL 
December 9, 1965 
(A. K. SARKAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.] 
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 
1956, <. 
3(1)-Whether first offence must be punished with 
imprisonment and 
fine-"Punishable" as distinguished from "Punished"-Whether gives dis-
cretion to court not to impose imprisonment. 
The respondent was convicted of offences under sections 3 ( 1) and 
4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 
1956. For the offence under s. 3(1) he was sentenced by the trial court 
to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500 and for that under s. 4(1) to pay a fine of 
Rs. 500. On appeal by the respondent, the High Court affirmed his con-
viction. The State preferred an application before 
the High Court for 
enhancement of the sentences and with regard 
to the offence under s. 
3(1) it was contended on behalf of the State that it was obligatory on 
the part of the Magistrate to pass the minimum 
sentence of imprison~ 
ment against the respondent. The High 
Court 
enhanced the fine in 
respect of this offence to a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - but did not pass a sentence 
of imprisonment. 
In reaching this conclusion, the High Court took the 
view that the use of the word "punishable" in s. 
3 (1) instead of the 
word "punished" necessarily postulates a certain discretion on the court 
to impose a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of fine or both. 
On appeal to this Court-
HELD : In the context in which the word "punishable" has been 
used in s. 3 ( 1) it is impossible to construe it as giving any discretion to 
the court in the matter of determining the nature of sentences to be passed 
in respect of a contravention of the provision. 
The 
punishments for a 
first offence under s. 3 ( !) are rigorous 
imprisonment for a period not 
less than one year and not more than three years and also a fine which 
may extend to Rs. 2,000/ -. [5 E-0) 
The expression "punishablen 
means "liable 
to punishment", which 
only means that a person who has contravened a penal provision will 
have to be punished. It does not mean anything different from "shall be 
punished". 
Punishment is obligatory in either cases but what the nature 
of punishment is to be, must be ascertained by a consideration of the 
whole of the penal provision. [4 HJ 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 114 of 1965. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 11th/ 12th November, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in 
Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1963 with Criminal Revision No. 917 
of 1963. 
N. S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant. 
R. K. Garg and U. P. Singh, for the respondent. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 3 S.CR. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
Mudholkar, J. 
In this appeal by special leave from a judg-
ment of the High Court of Bombay the short point for considera-
tion is whether it is obligatory upon the court which convicts a 
person of an offence under s. 3 ( 1) of the Suppression of Immoral 
Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 to pass a sentence of 
B 
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 ofTence under s. 3 (I) 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 c 
,entence of imprisonment. 
The respondent was also found guilty 
of an offence under s. 4 (I ) 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 ~espect 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 pre-
D 
fcrred an application for revision before the High Court for en-
hancement 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 impri-
sonment against the respondent in respect of the offence as pro-
vided under s. 3 (I) 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( I) of the Act, 
the sentence awarded by him was inadequate. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.