Skip to content


Gadde Koteswara Rao and ors. Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1974CriLJ81
AppellantGadde Koteswara Rao and ors.
RespondentThe State
Excerpt:
.....which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] declaration of notified area held, it is only under section 3 that government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. it is very conspicuous that section 4 does not contemplate any draft..........he should be detained in the senior certified school for a period of two years, thereafter in the borstal school for a period of three years and after discharge from the borstal school, he should be sent to the central jail to serve the rest of the period of life imprisonment.3. on a reference made to this court by the public prosecutor, it was clarified by a bench of this court stating that the period of detention of five years ordered in appeal was in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for life and the 6th accused is not to be sent to jail to serve any further period after his period of detention in the borstal school is over after that order, a memo has been filed on behalf of a6 contending that a6 cannot be sent to the borstal school after he had completed the period of two years.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In Sessions Case No. 25 of 1968 on the file of the Sessions Judge. Kistna at Machilipatnam, A6 was convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 348 read with 149 : 330 read with 149 and 304 Part II read with 149 I. P. C., for the part played by him in the burning of a Haitian boy at Kanchikacherla on 24-2-1968 after pouring kerosene on him and setting fire to him in order to extort a confession regarding some thefts, and in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment. as he was less than 16 years then, the Sessions Judge holding that as A6 comes under the definition of 'young person' defined in Section 3 (2) of the Madras Childrens Act IV of 1920. directed under Section 23 (2) of the said Act that he should be sent to a Senior Certified School for a period of two years. In Crl. A. No. 946/68 filed by the State, all the above convictions as against A6 were set aside and he along with A3 and A5 was instead convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and as A6 has now been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I P. C., the period of detention was enhanced from two years to five years.

2. In working out the direction of the Court regarding the detention of A6, the Sessions Judge directed that as A6 has not completed 16 years of age, he should be detained in the Senior Certified School for a period of two years, thereafter in the Borstal School for a period of three years and after discharge from the Borstal School, he should be sent to the Central Jail to serve the rest of the period of life imprisonment.

3. On a reference made to this Court by the Public Prosecutor, it was clarified by a Bench of this Court stating that the period of detention of five years ordered in appeal was in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for life and the 6th accused is not to be sent to Jail to serve any further period after his period of detention in the Borstal School is over After that order, a memo has been filed on behalf of A6 contending that A6 cannot be sent to the Borstal School after he had completed the period of two years in the Senior Certified School, as the provisions of the Borstal Schools Act bestows jurisdiction on the Court only when the offender at the time of the conviction was not less than 16 years and not more than 21 years of age, that neither the provisions under Section 8 nor Section 10-A of the Borstal Schools Act are attracted and that therefore the clarification to the effect that A6 should be detained in the Borstal School for the rest of the period of five years is without jurisdiction and void; that Sections 3< (3), 22, 23 and 24 of the Madras Childrens Act make it amply clear that he must automatically be released on his attaining the age of 18 years and as the 6th accused has attained 18 years of age. he should now he released; that the Court cannot treat the provisions of the Childrens Act and the Borstal Schools Act as supplementing each other and that the period of five years of detention fixed in the judgment of the Court should terminate on the accused attaining 18 years.

4. The above contentions are not correct. The probation of Offenders Act. the Childrens Act and the Borstal Schools Act. are meant to control future behaviour of offenders, than punish their Previous or past conduct, with the hope of reclaiming them to the Society, than making them confirmed criminals by sending them to Jails as they will be associated with fellows of all types. Of these enactments, the Childrens Act and the Borstal Schools Act-Provide for sending to correctional institutions the delinaqent children and adolscent offenders with a view to reforming them. The two enactments are meant for different age groups. Section 24 of the Childrens Act only prescribes that he shall not be detained beyond the age of his attaining 18 years and within that period he shall not be sent to that School for less than two years. In the Borstal Schools Act also similar pro-vision is found in Section 8 of the Act, where also the period of detention should not be less than two years and shall not go beyond the time of his attaining the age of 23 years. The period of two years is fixed, so that the strict discipline and constructive training of the offender, result in the productivity of a meaningful nature instead of short durations which may not have any effect. While under the Childrens Act the offenders who are between 12 to 16 years of age can be committed to the Certified Schools, under the Borstal Schools Act, he should be between 16 and 21 years of age. The total detention period in each of these institutions is five years. The provisions of these two Acts are meant to regulate the period of detention under each Act in the two different institutions. They do not in any way fetter the discretion of the Court in fixing the period of detention. It is nowhere stated in either of the enactments that after the period of detention in each of these institutions, he should be Released. What is stated under Section 24 of the Childrens Act is that he cannot be detained in that institution beyond the age of 18 years. This does not place an embargo on his being sent to the Borstal School thereafter to serve the rest of the period of detention. It cannot be said that when the Court has the power to fix any period of detention in lieu of sentence, the period so fixed cannot be worked out by sending the offender to the two different institutions, viz., Senior Certified School and the Borstal School, so long as the provisions of those enactments are not in any way infringed. In this case, as the period of five years has been fixed by the Court for the detention of A6 in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for life, it is within the powers of the Court to regulate and distribute his period of detention in the two institutions keeping in view the provisions of the two Acts. It is always open to the Court to pass such orders as are necessary in the interests of justice, acting under Section 561-A Cr. P C. to give effect to a valid order of detention passed by the Court. Otherwise the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused will lead to anomalous situations as no offender just below 16 years of age can be ordered to be detained beyond the age of eighteen, however serious the offence may be even though there is provision for detention even up to the age of 23 years under the Borstal Schools Act.

5. We see, therefore, no reason to modify the direction already given with regard to the detention of 6th accused.


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