Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Gobinda - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All159
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentGobinda
Excerpt:
act no. viii of 1897 (reformatory schools act), sections 8 and 16 - order for detention in a reformatory school under section 8--revision--powers of high court. - .....to one month's rigorous imprisonment. the magistrate substituted an order of detention in a reformatory school for four years for the order of imprisonment. the magistrate found that gobinda was a dalera and twelve years of age. daleras are excluded from the purview of act no. viii of 1897 in these provinces under rules made on the 18th of june 1897, by the local government. consequently the order for substitution was illegal. it was further illegal in that it transgressed the rule which regulates the period for which a youthful offender of that age might he sent to a reformatory school. under section 16 of act no. viii of 1897, this court is precluded from altering or reversing that order, as the order was an order for detention in a reformatory school in substitution for an.....
Judgment:

John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.

1. Gobinda was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced therefor to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The Magistrate substituted an order of detention in a Reformatory School for four years for the order of imprisonment. The Magistrate found that Gobinda was a Dalera and twelve years of age. Daleras are excluded from the purview of Act No. VIII of 1897 in these Provinces under rules made on the 18th of June 1897, by the Local Government. Consequently the order for substitution was illegal. It was further illegal in that it transgressed the rule which regulates the period for which a youthful offender of that age might he sent to a Reformatory School. Under Section 16 of Act No. VIII of 1897, this Court is precluded from altering or reversing that order, as the order was an order for detention in a Reformatory School in substitution for an order of imprisonment. Consequently, even if Gobinda had been a youthful offender who was not excluded from the operation of the Act by the rules made by the Local Government, we could not interfere with that portion of the order which directed him to be detained in a Reformatory School for four years. We dismiss this application.


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