Skip to content


C. Elumalai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition (Criminal) No. 981 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985SC118; 1985CriLJ510; 1985(1)Crimes656(SC); 1984(2)SCALE645; (1984)4SCC539; [1985]1SCR1057
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 433A; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302; Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 - Sections 10 and 10A; Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925 - Sections 10A
AppellantC. Elumalai
RespondentState of Tamil Nadu
Appellant Advocate Navin Malhotra and; Harjinder Singh, Advs
Respondent Advocate K. Parasaran, ; Attorney General and ; A.V. Rangam, Advs.
Cases ReferredSlate of Andhra Pradesh v. Vallabhapuram Ravi
Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (khand nyaypeeth ko appeal) adhiniyam (14 of 2006)section 2 :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu,jj] writ appeal delay of 589 days in filing - condonation of delay - statements made in application making out sufficient cause for delay delay condoned on condition of payment of costs. .....they have attained 23 years of age and that they should be released. the provisions of the tamil nadu borstal schools act, 1925 are identical with the provisions of the andhra borstal schools act, 1925. in the judgment referred to above the decision of the madras high court in in re. ganapati 1983 criminal law journal 509 which had taken the view that after section 433a of the crpc, 1973 came into force a person who was convicted of an offence punishable under section 302 of indian penal code but sentenced to imprisonment for life and who was by virtue of an order passed under section 10a of the tamil nadu borstal schools act, 1925 detained in a borstal school could not be released before he completed 14 years of detention has also been overruled. in the circumstances it has to be held.....
Judgment:

E.S. Venkataramiah, J.

1. We have heard Shri Navin Malhotra, amicus curiae, and the learned Attorney-General for the State of Tamil Nadu. In the Slate of Andhra Pradesh v. Vallabhapuram Ravi (1984) (2) SC 386 (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1984) in which judgment was delivered on September 14, 1984 this Court has held that adolescent offenders kept in a Borstal School by virtue of orders made by the State Government under Section 10A of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925 cannot be detained in the Borstal School or in any other place after they have attained 23 years of age and that they should be released. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 are identical with the provisions of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925. In the judgment referred to above the decision of the Madras High Court in In re. Ganapati 1983 Criminal Law Journal 509 which had taken the view that after Section 433A of the CrPC, 1973 came into force a person who was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but sentenced to imprisonment for life and who was by virtue of an order passed under Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 detained in a Borstal School could not be released before he completed 14 years of detention has also been overruled. In the circumstances it has to be held that the State Government of Tamil Nadu cannot keep any adolescent offender who is convicted of the capital offence but sentenced to imprisonment of life in respect of whom an order is made under Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act in a Borstal School or in any other kind of detention after he has attained 23 years of age. We, therefore, direct the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu to release all such inmates of the Borstal Schools in Tamil Nadu who have attained 23 years of age forthwith.

2. If the petitioner C. Elumalai satisfies the above condition he is also entitled to be released and if he is not in detention he shall not be taken back into custody. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.


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