KANAN MANDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Kannan Mandal aged 56 years has been convicted under Section 366 of the IPC as also sections 4, 5 & 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short 'ITP Act') vide judgment dated 27.08.2013 and vide order of sentence of the same day i.e. 27.08.2013 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 30 days for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 4 of ITP Act, she has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 30 days; for the offence under Section 5 of ITP Act, she has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 30 days; for the offence under Section 6 of ITP Act, she has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 30 days. The trial Court was conscious of the fact that Section 6 of the ITP Act prescribes a minimum sentence of 7 years giving discretion to the Court to reduce the imprisonment for less than 7 years for reasons which are adequate; the impugned judgment had noted the reasons in the preceding paragraph which was the age of the appellant being 56 years and there being no prior conviction against her. The Court had also noted that she is a lady.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is not challenging the merits of the judgment but he seeks relief for his client and period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant; she having undergone 4 years and more than 3 months of the maximum sentence of 4 years and 6 months imposed upon her as the period of sentence.

(3.) AS noted supra, she is a lady and there is no criminal background attached to her prior to this conviction; her conduct even in the jail during her incarceration of 4 years and more than 3 months being satisfactory, this Court thinks it to be a fit case to release the appellant on the period of sentence already undergone by her. Thus while maintaining the conviction, the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant be treated as sentence imposed upon her. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.