Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Rama Sudama Mahar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 139 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1913)15BOMLR306; 19Ind.Cas.512
AppellantEmperor
RespondentRama Sudama Mahar
Excerpt:
.....in reformatory-period of detention to be fixed.;the accused, a boy of thirteen years was convicted of theft and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. the trying magistrate, in view of the age of the accused, ordered him to be detained in a reformatory school for five years or ' until he attains the age of eighteen years ' in lieu of the imprisonment:;that the period of detention in the reformatory school should be a definite period, and that the alternative period of time expressed in the words or 'until he attains the age of thirteen years' should be deleted. queen-empress v. rama (1900) i.l.r. 24 mad. 13, followed. - - 13 is good authority for the objection......with regard to one rama sudatna mahar of lonavla, who is found to have committed theft. the learned magistrate finds that the accused lad is thirteen years old. instead, therefore, of suffering the rigorous imprisonment for two months which was imposed, the accused was by the convicting magistrate directed to be detained in a reformatory school for five years ' or until he attains the age of eighteen years.' the district magistrate objects to the alternative period of time expressed in the words 'or until he attains the age of eighteen years '; and we think that the decision in queen empress v. ramai i.l.r. (1900) mad. 13 is good authority for the objection. we must, therefore, delete from the magistrate's order the words 'or until he attains the age of eighteen years,' leaving the.....
Judgment:

1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Poona in regard to an order passed by a First Class trate with regard to one Rama Sudatna Mahar of Lonavla, who is found to have committed theft. The learned Magistrate finds that the accused lad is thirteen years old. Instead, therefore, of suffering the rigorous imprisonment for two months which was imposed, the accused was by the convicting Magistrate directed to be detained in a Reformatory School for five years ' or until he attains the age of eighteen years.' The District Magistrate objects to the alternative period of time expressed in the words 'or until he attains the age of eighteen years '; and we think that the decision in Queen Empress v. Ramai I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 13 is good authority for the objection. We must, therefore, delete from the Magistrate's order the words 'or until he attains the age of eighteen years,' leaving the period of five years as the exact period for which the boy is to be detained in the Reformatory.


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