Mandatory sentence under the Immoral Traffic Act includes imprisonment and fine; court cannot substitute fine alone.

Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 was construed as requiring mandatory punishment of rigorous imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than three years, together with fine, on conviction for a first offence. The phrase "shall be punishable" was read with the penal wording and the use of "and" to show that the legislature intended both components of sentence to follow conviction. The court rejected the view that imprisonment could be replaced by fine alone, holding that judicial discretion did not extend to dispensing with the statutory imprisonment requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 required the court, on conviction for a first offence, to impose a sentence of imprisonment in addition to fine, or whether the court had discretion to impose only a fine.

Analysis: The expression "shall be punishable" in Section 3(1), read with the prescribed punishment of rigorous imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than three years and also fine, was construed as mandatory rather than discretionary. The use of "and" in the penal clause showed that the Legislature intended both imprisonment and fine to follow conviction for the first offence. The wording of the provision was held to exclude any discretion to substitute fine alone for the statutorily required sentence of imprisonment. The earlier view that the word "punishable" left the nature of punishment to judicial choice was rejected.

Conclusion: A conviction under Section 3(1) required imposition of imprisonment for not less than one year, along with fine, and the High Court was in error in treating the imprisonment component as discretionary.

---