John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.
1. In this case the accused, who is twenty years of age, was convicted by the City Magistrate, First Class, Bandra, of an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused admitted three previous convictions. The learned Magistrate says on the question of sentence :-
Having regard to his youth and caste on the one hand and to the previous convictions on the other hand I sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for fifteen months to be undergone in the Dharwar Juvenile Jail.
Now, the learned Magistrate in imposing that sentence bad obviously not taken the trouble to look at the Borstal Act Under Section 6 of the Borstal Act when an offender is found guilty of an offence for which he is liable to be sentenced to transportation or imprisonment and certain conditions are satisfied, it shall then be lawful for the Court to pass in lieu of a sentence of transportation or imprisonment an order for the detention of the offender in aBorstal School for such term not being less than two years nor more than five years as the Court, subject to rules under the Act, thinks fit. So that the proper procedure for the learned Magistrate to have adopted would have been this, he should have convicted the accused under Section 380, and then in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment he should have sentenced him to be detained for a period of not less than two years and not more than five years in theBorstal school. It is wrong to sentence the accused to rigorous imprisonment and then direct him to undergo it in the Dharwar Juvenile Jail, because what the prisoners detained in the Juvenile Jail at Dharwar undergo is not rigorous imprisonment. We, therefore, in accordance with the recommendation of the District Magistrate enhance the sentence to two years and in lieu of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment we direct that the accused be detained for two years in the Borstal School, Dharwar.
2. I agree.