Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chelliah Tevan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad61; (1940)2MLJ418
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentChelliah Tevan and anr.
Cases ReferredThe Public Prosecutor v. Malaipathi Gurappa Naidu
Excerpt:
- .....under sections 323, 324 and 114 of the indian penal code and the proceedings were submitted to the joint magistrate of tuticorin under section 7(1) of the madras borstal schools act with the opinion of the sub-magistrate that the respondents who are adolescent offenders as defined in section 2(1) of the act are proper persons to be detained in a borstal school. the joint magistrate acquitted the respondents and the question is whether this is permissible.2. the proceedings were submitted under section 7(1) of the madras borstal schools act which provides that when a magistrate not empowered to pass sentence under that act is of opinion that an adolescent offender is a proper person to be detained in a borstal school he may without passing sentence record such opinion and submit his.....
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The respondents were convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Tuticorin for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings were submitted to the Joint Magistrate of Tuticorin under Section 7(1) of the Madras Borstal Schools Act with the opinion of the Sub-Magistrate that the respondents who are adolescent offenders as defined in Section 2(1) of the Act are proper persons to be detained in a Borstal School. The Joint Magistrate acquitted the respondents and the question is whether this is permissible.

2. The proceedings were submitted under Section 7(1) of the Madras Borstal Schools Act which provides that when a Magistrate not empowered to pass sentence under that Act is of opinion that an adolescent offender is a proper person to be detained in a Borstal School he may without passing sentence record such opinion and submit his proceedings and forward the adolescetrt offender to the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate to whom he is subordinate and the Joint Magistrate to w4i0m the proceedings were submitted has to dispose of the case as prescribed in Section 7(2) of the Madras Borstal Schools Act. That section provides that he may make such further enquiry if any as he may think fit and pass such sentence or order dealing with the case as he might have passed if the adolescent had been tried by him, and as pointed out in The Public Prosecutor v. Malaipathi Gurappa Naidu : AIR1933Mad728 , with reference to the analogous provision in Section 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not permissible to the Joint Magistrate to acquit the accused. A conviction has to be recorded before the proceedings are submitted under Section 7(1) of the Madras Borstal Schools Act as otherwise there would be no 'adolescent offender' and when the proceedings reach the Joint Magistrate he has to deal with a person who has been convicted. The powers conferred by Section 7(2) of the Madras Borstal Schools Act are neither appellate nor revisional, and the order permissible under Section 7(2) is only such as can be passed upon a convicted person. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the case will go back to the Joint Magistrate for disposal according to law.


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