Judgment :- 1. A pedagogue, past middle age, in a fit of foolish romance, dashed towards a fellow teacher of the female sex finding her accidentally alone in a room on a Saturday afternoon, shortly after the classes had dispersed earlier than usual, turned her face towards his and planted a fleeting kiss on her cheek (or lips?) as she was trying to make a cup of ovaltine; and when the offended lady screamed, the randy offender ran away. This, in brief, is the judicial finding concurrently made in affirmation of the prosecution version. While some criticism is possible about the evidence for the prosecution and its appreciation by the courts below I am satisfied not only that there is no real room for interference in revision but that there is basic truth (embroidered by fringes of falsehood, perhaps) in the case unfolded by the lady before the police shortly after the occurrence and substantially repeated later before the magistrate. I, therefore, decline to disturb the conviction and confine myself to a consideration of that delicate, difficult and yet important finale of a criminal trial, viz., the sentence to be awarded. The learned magistrate imposed a punishment of 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. Every criminal proceeding should be dichotomised into two stages; the pre-conviction and the post-conviction phases. What is relevant in fixing the sentence may be irrelevant and even objectionable in the fixing of the guilt and all that is relevant at the conviction stage, pooled and presented to the court, may be altogether inadequate for the sentencing process. That is why judges, when they sentence offenders, have too little knowledge of the real circumstances of the offender and of the factors which really caused him to do what he did, the motivation for the crime and of the curative prescription that would protect the community and salvage the individual. That is why judges, when they sentence offenders, have too little knowledge of the real circumstances of the offender and of the factors which really caused him to do what he did, the motivation for the crime and of the curative prescription that would protect the community and salvage the individual. If the discretion given to the judge in the matter of personalising punishment is to be effectively exercised, additional fact-finding processes have to be resorted to by the judge either in the shape of a judicial hearing before sentencing, for which there is no express provision in our Code, or through the instrumentality of the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the defence who may be in a position to lay before the court, after the prisoner's guilt has been fixed, such reliable information as would enable the court to adjust and adapt its sentence to the needs of the case. The criminal law of India being largely offence-oriented and very inadequately offender-oriented, there is really no statutory procedure for the post-conviction fact-finding programme unlike in many other systems of penal law. I have sought the help of counsel for materials relevant in this regard. 3. Another handicap for the judge confronted by a sentencing situation is the total absence of directive principles to regulate the exercise of his discretion in individualising the punishment. Generally, the sentence under the Indian Penal Code is one of relative indeterminateness with a high fixed maximum and with absolutely no statutory guidelines for the magistrate except such as he may glean from judicial decisions which themselves may be too variable to serve as precise leading strings. The Indian Penal Code, over 100 years old, and the Criminal Procedure Code, around 70 years old, are hardly conscious of the remarkable strikes made in modern penology and do not articulate the current sentencing policy which jurists advocate, judges apply and the statutes of other countries have codified. It may be appropriate to observe that the art of punitive treatment is still the Cinderella of Indian Criminal Law. All that I can do in this case is to accommodate within the limits of the existing law what I consider to be the legitimate purposes and processes of penal treatment. An unguided missile, euphemistically described as a judicial punishment, may well be a social hazard. 4. All that I can do in this case is to accommodate within the limits of the existing law what I consider to be the legitimate purposes and processes of penal treatment. An unguided missile, euphemistically described as a judicial punishment, may well be a social hazard. 4. Sentencing is a means to an end, a psycho-physical panacea to cure the culprit of socially dangerous behaviour. Penal strategy must, therefore, strike a sober balance between sentimental softness towards the criminal, masquerading as progressive sociology and the terror-cum-torment-oriented handling of the criminal, which is actually, in many cases, the sublimated expression of judicial severity although ostensibly imposed as a deterrent to save society from further crimes. Social defence through reformation of the criminal, a task to perform which psychology and sociology are auxiliary tools, is what strikes me as the primary object of punishment. In a sense, the triune purposes of penal treatment will take in social defence, redemption of the convict and the satisfaction of the victim and the community that justice has been done in the case. 5. What are the relevant individual and family factors about the culprit in this case? As usual, it is an ill-lit area and very little data have been gathered on this aspect in this case. However, being a teacher he has an educational background and being a fifty-year old man he is prone to be sensitive to the public opprobrium of a criminal conviction and may react favourably to admonition by court. In the absence of evidence contra, one may view him as a first offender and not as a nymphomaniac. Harsh punishment is contra-indicated in such cases. A man's family and associates usually influence his behaviour. His cultural pursuits and responsible positions in quasi-public organisations, if any, may steady his conduct. But we know next to nothing about these facets of the accused's life. 6. What is the mores of the group in which he lives? Does the community look upon an isolated, non-violent kiss in privacy, without any physical follow-up or aggravating factors as so outrageous as to visit draconic punishment? In the current phase of our civilisation orthodox conceptions about sex proprieties are undergoing social mutations and conduct regarded as shocking a quarter of a century ago is openly indulged in by standard-setting classes. Does the community look upon an isolated, non-violent kiss in privacy, without any physical follow-up or aggravating factors as so outrageous as to visit draconic punishment? In the current phase of our civilisation orthodox conceptions about sex proprieties are undergoing social mutations and conduct regarded as shocking a quarter of a century ago is openly indulged in by standard-setting classes. Similarly, what used to be viewed as objectionable in our country is respectable behaviour in the west and even in our cities; so much so, old inhibitions have been eroded by the march of time and social commerce with the west. I cannot, therefore, feign prudish perturbation and justify a term of long imprisonment for the overt act imputed to the accused. At the same time, the criminal law is bound not only to safeguard the accused but also to protect the community from philanderers, particularly those occupying sensitive positions, by stern punishment lest the court be suspected of condoning sex and vice which corrupt expanding areas of Indian city life. It is this mood that made me decline bail to the accused in revision. 7. What then are the circumstances of the crime? It is true that the moral lapse implied in the damp intrusion into dissenting female lips, even if performed in comparative privacy and abandoned hurriedly on vocal remonstrance by the damsel in distress is also a legal offence under the Penal Code. But let us observe some features which have a bearing on the punishment. A person who osculates a fellow teacher yielding to a tempting opportunity but withdraws from his erotic impropriety in an instant deserves less condign punishment than a venereal brute who threatens violence when the indecent assault is met with female resistance. A first offender who presses a sudden kiss from inside a room is different from a randy ruffian who persists in molesting a lady even in public. These are plus points for the accused. But a man of fifty has less excuse than a youth in his twenties, a violation of a married woman like pw 1 is more vicious than of a maiden. More than all, school premises, unlike evening parks or cabaret dance halls, are not the arena for the Romeo and Juliet game or prurient exercises. But a man of fifty has less excuse than a youth in his twenties, a violation of a married woman like pw 1 is more vicious than of a maiden. More than all, school premises, unlike evening parks or cabaret dance halls, are not the arena for the Romeo and Juliet game or prurient exercises. They are hallowed spots where young minds need wholesome nurturing of character and teachers will do well to remember that practice is better than precept. Lascivious overtures by teachers spoil these tender buds, these tiny kids, hopefully sent by trusting parents. The dialogue that followed shortly after the libidinous act suggests that the accused, instead of begging for pardon repentantly, repudiated his act nonchalantly when questioned by other teachers a conduct which goes against him. A severe public admonition will make him a better man, reflecting over his offence. All things considered, a psycho-physical sentence will produce the desired change in the accused, I hope the question is whether under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court can impose a substantive term of imprisonment and super-add an admonition. S.562-IA of the Criminal Procedure Code covers certain categories of offences only and any admonition under that Section is not permissible in cases of other offences. In the present case, the conviction is under S.354 I. P. C. punishable with 2 years of imprisonment and, therefore, covered by the admonitory provision. However, S.562-TA directs that in cases where extenuatory circumstances are present, a mere admonition in substitution of a punishment may be awarded, but narrowly interpreted, it does not in terms contemplate a reduction in the punishment by the appellate court and the award of a reproof on top of it. Never-the-less the words 'instead of sentencing him to any punishment' have to be liberally construed; and 'any punishment' in the context may cover 'any portion thereof. In my view, the language of S.562-IA read with S.561A is flexible and elastic enough to empower the High Court to reduce, for the ends of justice, the sentence awarded by the courts below and in lieu of that reduced portion of or cut back on punishment, admonish the offender. A public censure by the court may make a moral impact on him which the mere harshness of incarceration may not. 8. The accused was convicted on 13-11-1969 and has been in jail down to date i. e.18-12-1969. A public censure by the court may make a moral impact on him which the mere harshness of incarceration may not. 8. The accused was convicted on 13-11-1969 and has been in jail down to date i. e.18-12-1969. I regard the period undergone as sufficient in the circumstances of the case but censure the offender publicly for what he has done with a warning to him not to persist in the criminal path but to turn a new leaf. The accused will be set at liberty. 9. The deprivation of his job may well be a punishment on his family and dependants, if any. Whether the teacher, for this deviation, will lose his job is more than I need consider here. I leave it to the authorities concerned to view the matter in the proper spirit and according to the mandates contained in the relevant Kerala Education Rules. For administration of the admonition the case will be posted to 19-12-1969 on which date the prisoner will be directed to be produced in Court if he is not released today.