A school master can inflict reasonable and moderate corporal punishment on a pupil for the purpose of correcting the child or for maintaining school discipline, and such punishment is protected under Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against an order of conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE complainant's case was as follows: He was a student of Class VII of Samshi Secondary School in the district of Malda. The petitioner was the Head Master of the School. On August 12, 1961, during school hours one other student named Hiran lost one of his books while in the School. The complainant was found to have stolen that book. The petitioner thereupon treat him with a cane and also gave him fists and blow.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was on this allegation tried tinder Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days.

( 4 ) MR. Chatterjee, who appears for the petitioner, does not question the finding of fact that 'the petitioner beat the complainant with a cane and gave him some fists and blows. He contends, however, that the petitioner has not committed, any criminal oftence in view of Sections 88 and 89 of the India Penal Code.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 89 of the Indian Penal Code, nothing, which has been done, in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years of age by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to that person. Here, in this case, the complainant gave his age as 13 years at the time he gave evidence i. e. , on July 12, 1962. It would not, therefore, be safe to hold that at the time of the incident he was under 12 years of age. Obviously, therefore, Section 89 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted to the facts of this case.

( 6 ) UNDER Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code, nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm. From the facts it cannot be said that the beating was intended to cause death. The complainant, a boy of very tender age, was found to have stolen a book of another student in the school. Beating was, clearly enough, for correcting him so that he may no more commit theft in future. The beating must, therefore, be said to have been for the benefit of the complainant.

( 7 ) MR. Sinha, who appears for the complainant, submits that from the nature of the injuries it should be said that the action of the petitioner was not in good faith. There were some strokes with a cane and there were some fists and blows too; from the medical evidence it appears that there were 5 ecchymosis but all of them were of minor nature. One tooth was found loose and that could have been caused by some blow. But from this it cannot be said that the action of the petitioner was mala fide i. e. , not in good faith. The motive for the beating is very relevant for determining if it was in good faith. There is no doubt that the petitioner's motive was to correct the complainant for his future good and to maintain discipline in the school. Mr. Sinha refers to a circular issued by the Board of Secondary Education. This circular does not totally prohibit corporal punishment but directs the Head Master to exercise proper restraint when inflicting corporal punishment. Corporal punishment, according to this circular should be administered to inflict pain only without any bodily injury. There has, however, been some bodily injury in this case. But merely because the petitioner exceeded the limits prescribed by the administrative circular of the Board of Secondary Education, it cannot be said that the petitioner has deprived himself of the protection given to him under Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code, because the circular of the Board of Secondary Education canno