IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.117 of 2005 Between: Kalidas Yellamma, W/o.Lingaiah, Aged 50 years, (correct age is 70 years) Occ: House Hold, R/o. H.No.2-7-98, Karimnagar (Proper). …Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.117 of 2005 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the judgment dated 02.11.2001 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar in C.C.No.351 of 2001 convicting the petitioner herein under Section 3 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘the Act’, for brevity) and sentencing her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months, was confirmed. For the sake of convenience, the accused shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 2. The brief facts sans necessary details for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows. On 23.04.1995, while the police were on patrolling duty in Karimnagar town proper, when they reached the house of the revision petitioner who is arrayed as A-2, at about 08:00 P.M., they found A-1 sitting on the steps of the house of the petitioner seducing and soliciting the public for prostitution. However, when the police party was searching the house, A-2 escaped from there. A-1 was taken into custody and shifted to the police station. On interrogation, A-1 stated that she resides in the house of A-2 by doing prostitution and half of her earnings by way of prostitution, are taken by A-2. While the police party was taking away A-1, they found A-3 sitting on the steps of the house of A-4 and was seducing and soliciting the public for the purpose of prostitution. She was also arrested by the police and when the police were searching the house of A-4, she escaped from there. On interrogation, A-3 also stated on the similar lines as that of A-1. Both of them were taken by police to I Town Police Station, Karimnagar and a case was registered against them in Crime No.132 of 1995 under Sections 8 and 3 of the Act and subsequently, charge-sheet was laid against them into the Court. Subsequently since A-3 was reported dead and A-4 was absconding, the case against them was split up and A-1 and A-2 alone were tried. The petitioner herein and A-1 were examined under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’. for brevity) and on their pleading guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 3 of the Act, convicted and sentenced A-1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months and A-2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2001 before the lower appellate court, which dismissed the same, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the appeal, Accused No.2 alone preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 3. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on behalf of both the parties, inasmuch as the conviction is based on the admission made by the accused herself. 4. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the plea of guilt recorded by the trial court can be said to be recorded after explaining the repercussions of such admission, as the petitioner is said to be aged, illiterate and not worldly wise woman. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being aged, innocent, illiterate and rustic woman, did not understand the atmosphere and language of the Court and consequently admitted the guilt and pleaded guilty to the charge leveled against her without knowing the consequences thereof visualizing that she would be let off, may be, by imposing a meager sum as fine. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that having regard to the age and other factors relating to the petitioner and since she had no past criminal history, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court ought to have taken a lenient view or at least ought to have extended the benefit of provisions under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and let her off after requiring her to execute a bond to be of good behaviour and ultimately prays to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, as she herself pleaded guilty before the trial Court, more particularly, when she is involved in an offence of human trafficking, and thus vehemently tried to support the impugned judgment and prayed this Court to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Case. 8. It is not a case where the petitioner can plead that there is inconsistency in the evidence, inasmuch as she herself admitted the offence. The only question is whether such admission is voluntary or tutored one. As can be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not seem to be unaware of the consequences of admission of guilt. The plea that she is innocent and unable to understand legal parlance or the court proceedings does not affect her voluntary admission of guilt, at the most they can be considered as mitigating factors while imposing punishment. In view of voluntary admission of the petitioner herein, the conviction for the offence under Sections 3 and 8 of the Act recorded by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court is confirmed. 9. Having affirmed the conviction, now the point to be examined is whether the sentence imposed on her is justified or not. Admittedly, the offence took place as long back as in the year 1995 and thus fourteen years have elapsed from the date of the incident. It is stated that the petitioner/A-2 is now aged above seventy years. Having regard to the age of the petitioner and also the fact that the fine amount imposed on her is already paid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of provisions of Section 360(4) of Cr.P.C. can be extended to the petitioner/A-2 at this stage. 10. In the circumstances, while affirming the conviction, the trial Court i.e. the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar or any other Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar having jurisdiction, is directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 11. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J December 17, 2009 BVV