SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(AP) 687

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.MISHRA, S.S.HUSSAINI
Government Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
E.Kumar - Respondent
Decided On : 08-01-96

The court has the power to issue a mandamus directing the authorities to transfer adolescent offenders to Borstal school under the provisions of the A. P. Borstal School Act, 1925.

Headnote:

ADOLESCENT OFFENDER - BORSTAL SCHOOL ACT, 1925 - SECTIONS 2(1), 8, 10, 10A, 11 - COURT'S POWER TO DIRECT TRANSFER OF ADOLESCENT OFFENDERS TO BORSTAL SCHOOL - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - AGE DETERMINATION - DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF AUTHORITIES.

Fact of the Case:

Writ appeals challenging the judgment of the single Judge directing the appellants to transfer the respondents, who are undergoing imprisonment for life, to Borstal school as adolescent offenders under the A. P. Borstal School Act, 1925.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 725 and 740 of 1996 were adolescent offenders within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act at the time of conviction and were entitled to the benefits under the Act. However, the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 735 of 1996 was not entitled to the benefits as he had attained the age of 23 years.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were adolescent offenders within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act at the time of conviction? 2. Whether the authorities had exercised their discretionary powers under the Act in transferring the adolescent offenders to Borstal school? 3. Whether the court could issue a mandamus directing the appellants to transfer the adolescent offenders to Borstal school?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(1) of the Act and held that an adolescent offender is a person convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment or who has failed to give security under Section 106 or Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and who is not less than 16 years nor more than 21 years of age at the time of conviction or failure to give security. 2. The court held that the authorities had failed to exercise their discretionary powers under the Act in not transferring the adolescent offenders to Borstal school. 3. The court held that it had the power to issue a mandamus directing the appellants to transfer the adolescent offenders to Borstal school under the provisions of the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals W. A. 725 of 1996 and W. A. 740 of 1996 and directed the appellants to transfer the respondents to the Borstal school. The court allowed the Writ Appeal 735 of 1996 and dismissed the writ petition.

SYED SAADATULLA HUSSAINI, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) AS the point involved in these appeals is common, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Advocate General questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge in these appeals and submits that there is no material on record to show that the life convicts-respondents are between the age of 16 to 21 years. In the absence of enquiry as to the determination of the age by the Authorities as per the provisions of the A. P. Borstal School Act, 1925 (for short act ), the learned single Judge erred in issuing directions to the appellants to send the respondents, who are undergoing imprisonment for life in different prisons of the State, treating them as adolescent offenders for detention in the Borstal school. Next, he contended that the learned single Judge failed to take notice as it is the discretion of the State Government, the Inspector General of Prisons and the Judge who passes the sentence, and, therefore no mandamus can be issued directing the exercising of discretion in a particular manner. On the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the life convicts-respondents were not adolescent offenders within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act on the date of conviction, on 4/07/1996, we directed the appellants to produce the respondents for determination of their ages before the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, who was directed to get them throughly examined for determination of their ages and submit a report to this Court.

( 4 ) IN compliance with the directions of this Court, the Professor, Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College issued certificates on 10-7-1996 opining on the basis of their physical, dental and radiological examination as follows :"1. E. Kumar, the respondent in W. A. 725 of 1996, is aged about 21 years;2. I. Nageswararao, son of respondent in W. A. 735 of 1996 is aged about 25 years;3. G. Praveen Kumar, the respondent in W. A. 740 of 1996 is aged about 21 years. "4. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act defines adolescent offender as under : "adolescent offender" means any person who has been convicted of any offence punishable with imprisonment or who having been ordered to give security (under Section 106 or Section 118) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has failed to do so and who at the time of such conviction or failure to give security is not less than 16 years nor more than 21 years of age. " Section 8 of the Act deals with regard to the committal to the Borstal school, which is as under :"where it appears to a Court having jurisdiction under Act that an adolescent offender should, by reason of his criminal habits or tendencies, or association with person of bad character, be subject to detention for such term and under such instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his reformation and the repression of crime, it should be lawful for the Court, in lieu of passing a sentence of imprisonment, to pass a sentence of detention in a Borstal school for a term which shall not be less than two years and shall not exceed five years but in no case extending beyond the date on which the adolescent offender will, in the opinion of the Court, attain the age of twenty-three years. "6. By virtue of the powers conferred under Sections 10 and 10a of the Act, Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, viz. , State Government and the Inspector General of Prisons are vested with the powers to transfer the adolescent offenders for detention in Borstal school, and, under Section 11 of the Act, a duty in cast upon the Court for determination of the age before passing a sentence under Section 8 of the Act, with regard to the age of the adolescent offenders. 7. It is to be noted that the intendment of the Legislature

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top