Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Mahomad Islam Abdul Sakur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 137 of 1939
Judge
Reported inAIR1939Bom371; (1939)41BOMLR554
AppellantEmperor
RespondentMahomad Islam Abdul Sakur
Excerpt:
bombay children's act (bom. xiii of 1924), sections 32 and 51 - youthful offender-period of detention-extension of period by high court-revision.;the high court has power under its revision jurisdiction, under section 51 of the bombay children's act, 1924, to extend the period of detention passed on a youthful offender, to the limit specified in section 32 of the act, at any time before the expiration of the term of detention originally passed. - .....the facts are that the boy in question was found guilty of an offence on june 18, 1934, by the district magistrate of nasik. the boy was at that date aged eleven years, and the learned district magistrate ordered him to be detained in a reformatory school for a period of five years. he was accordingly sent to the yeravada industrial school, and the superintendent of that school has reported to the district magistrate of nasik that the visiting committee of the school considers that in view of the character and circumstances of this boy, the period of his detention should be extended by one year. the learned district magistrate held, i think quite rightly, that he had no jurisdiction to extend the period ; and he has referred the matter to us for action, and the only question which we.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.

1. This is a reference made to the Court by the District Magistrate of Nasik in which he asks us to extend by one year the period for which Mahomed Islam Abdul Sakur was directed to be kept in a certified school.

2. The facts are that the boy in question was found guilty of an offence on June 18, 1934, by the District Magistrate of Nasik. The boy was at that date aged eleven years, and the learned District Magistrate ordered him to be detained in a reformatory school for a period of five years. He was accordingly sent to the Yeravada Industrial School, and the Superintendent of that school has reported to the District Magistrate of Nasik that the Visiting Committee of the School considers that in view of the character and circumstances of this boy, the period of his detention should be extended by one year. The learned District Magistrate held, I think quite rightly, that he had no jurisdiction to extend the period ; and he has referred the matter to us for action, and the only question which we really have to consider is whether we have jurisdiction to make the order, because, if we have jurisdiction, I see no reason why we should reject the opinion of the Visiting Committee.

3. The boy was sent to the reformatory school under the power conferred on the Magistrate by Section 23 of the Bombay Children's Act, 1924, which Act provides in Section 32 that the period for which a child-and this boy was a child within the meaning of the Act-is to be detained in a certified school shall be specified in the order in pursuance of which he is sent there and shall be such period, not being less than two years in the case of a youthful offender who at the date of the order is over the age of fifteen years and three years in the case of other youthful offenders as to the Court may seem proper for his teaching and training but not in any case extending beyond the time when he will, in the opinion of the Court, attain the age of eighteen years. Under Section 51 of the Act, an appeal is allowed from an order made by a Court under certain sections, but the list of such sections does not include Section 23. Therefore there was no right to appeal against the order made in this case. But Sub-section (3) of Section 51 provides that any order passed under the provisions of the Act and not subject to appeal under Sub-section (1) may be revised by the High Court. Therefore unquestionably we could have revised the order soon after it was made. The High Court could have held that the case was not a proper one for sending the boy to a certified school, or that the period of detention was too long or too short. There is no limit of time within which an application for revision must be, made, and I think that it can be made under Section 51 at any time before the expiration of the term of detention limited in the order. I think, therefore, that this High Court has jurisdiction to extend the period of detention in this case, provided the extended period does not exceed the limit specified in Section 32. As the boy was eleven at the date of the order directing his detention, he is now sixteen years of age, and we can, therefore, extend the period of his detention by one year as asked by the Superintendent of the school. We, therefore, make the order asked for.

Lokur, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //