JUDGMENT

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. The only question agitated before us by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 (hereinafter 'Borstal Schools Act') have been ignored by the Courts below. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned judgment that the applicability of the said statute has not been raised in either of the Courts below. Briefly stated, the Petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his paternal uncle on 12.8.1999. It is not disputed before us that the Petitioner's date of birth is 29.11.1979 thereby making him 19 years 8 months of age on the date of the commission of the murder. The Petitioner having been found guilty has been sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment of the Trial Court pronounced on 6.9.2002, on which date the Petitioner was 22 years 9 months old. It is contended before us by learned Senior Counsel that the Courts below erred in not directing the detention of the Petitioner in a Borstal School.

2. The Borstal Schools Act does not contemplate the term 'juvenile' at all. However, the definition of 'adolescent offender' is