Vyas, J.

[1] This is an appeal by one Vithal son of Maruti who has been convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, nth Court, Kurla, Bombay under Section 5, Sub-section (5), read with Section 6, Sub-section (3), Bombay Beggars Act (Bom. XXIII [23] of 1945). The order passed against him is one of detention for a period of ten years in a certified institution of Male Beggars Home, Worli, and it has further been directed that a period of one year out of the above mentioned term of ten years should be converted into a term of one years rigorous imprisonment. The allegation against the appellant was that he was found bogging in a public place on 7-10-1951. The learned trial Magistrate declared him a beggar under Section 5, Sub-section (4), of the Act, and proceeded to pass the order, mentioned above, against him under Section 5, Sub-section (5), read with Section 6, Sub-section (3), of the Act.

[2] Now Mr. Parulekars first contention, in this appeal, is that the entire scheme of the Bombay Beggars Act (XXIII [23] of 1945), is ultra vires of the Constitution, as a discrimination is made therein as between beggars on the basis of place of birth. Our attention is invited by Mr. Parulekar to Section 5, Sub-section (4), of the Act, which says:

"If on making the inquiry referred to in Sub-section (1) the Court is satisfied that such person was found begging it shall record a declaration that the person is a beggar. The Court shall also determine alter making an enquiry in the manner prescribed whether the person was born in the Province of Bombay and domiciled therein and stall include its findings in the declaration. The Court shall subject to the provisions of Section 23 make further order as in this section hereinafter provided."

It is argued by Mr. Parulekar, on the basis of this section, that such of the beggars as are born in the Province of Bombay and domiciled in the said Province are dealt with under Section 5, Sub-section (4), and in their case, provided there is a conviction for the second or subsequent time under Sub-section (1) of Section 6, the order of detention in a certified institution has got to be for a period of ten years and liberty is reserved to the Court to convert any period of the said detention, not exceeding two years, into a sentence of imprisonment. Then we are referred to Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, which says:

"If in the course of an inquiry made under Sub-section (1) of Section 5, it has appeared to the Court that the person declared a beggar under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 is neither born nor domiciled in the Province of Bombay the Court, after making such further inquiry, if any, as it deems necessary, may, instead of proceeding further under Section 5, by order in writing direct the beggar to leave the Province of Bombay within such time and by such route or routes as may be stated in the order and not to return thereto."

And it is argued that this section refers only to cases of beggars who are neither born nor domiciled in the Province of Bombay. Under this section, such beggars are not liable to detention in a certified institution and are also not liable to have a certain period of detention converted into a sentence of imprisonment. They are liable only to externment. From this, an argument is made before us by Mr. Parulekar that the Act makes a discrimination between beggars born in the Province of Bombay and beggars born outside the Province of Bombay and is therefore ultra vires of the Constitution of India, The contention must fail.

Apart from the fact that it is not correct to say that beggars neither born nor domiciled in the Province of Bombay cannot be dealt with under Section 5, Sub-section (5), read with Section 6 of the Act, it is to be noted that under Art. 15 of the Constitution of India, discrimination, which is discountenanced and forbidden, is discrimination on ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Where discrimination is