PRABHA SRIDEVAN, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, S.NAGAMUTHU
A. Thangammal – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Chennai – Respondent
Ms. PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.
The petitioner in H.C.P. No. 596 of 2007 is the mother of 24 year old Thangapandi. According to her, her son was born on 10.5.1983. He was one of the accused in S.C. No. 309 of 2002wherein three persons were found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. At that time, the fast Track Court viz., the Trial Court was not apprised of the fact that the petitioner is an adolescent offender“ as defined under the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925. Against the sentence imposed, Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 2005 was filed. Even before the Division Bench, this point was not urged and the criminal appeal was dismissed on 23.2.2007. Thereafter, the above H.C.P. was filed on the ground that the petitioner's son Thangapandi was 18 years 5 months and 12 days old as on the date of occurrence and 19 years 10 months and 18 days on the date of conviction, which is 28.3.2003 and therefore, he was entitled to invoke the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 and therefore, his continued detention was per se illegal. When this point was urged, it was found that there was a conflic
Arnit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488[Para 7]
Lingala Vijay Kumar v. Public Prosecutor AIR 1978 SC 1485[Para 28]
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand AIR 2005 SC 2731[Para 7]
Subbhash Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1988 SC 584[Para 10]
Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 2236[Para 28]
New India Assurance Co. v. Nusli Neville Wadia (2007) 14 Scale 556[Para 19]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.