IN RE: VELUCHAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unnecessary reference made by the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in the following circumstances.

(2.) ONE Veluchami, an adolescent offender, was tried by the Sub -Magistrate, Tuticorin, for an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in C.G. No. 2794 of 1957. The accused pleaded guilty. On a reference made to the District Probation Officer to enquire into the antecedents of the accused, the latter reported that the accused had criminal propensities and that institutional treatment would be beneficial to him in view of his tender age and criminal tendencies. The medical evidence shows that the accused is 18 years of age. The Sub -Magistrate, who was not empowered under the Madras Borstal Schools Act, submitted the records to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, for necessary orders under Section8 of the Act. The Magistrate unwittingly or out of ignorance added Section 349, Criminal Procedure Code, also in submitting the reference.

(3.) THIS unexceptional order is the subject -matter of this reference made by the District Magistrate, because the District Magistrate conceived that the reference should have been made under Section 349, Criminal Procedure Code and once such a reference was made, it was open to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, to go into the whole matter and come to the conclusion as to whether the accused should be convicted or even acquitted. In other words, the District Magistrate found fault with the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, for the view held by him that if such a reference under the Madras Borstal Schools Act is made he can only pass sentence or order as might have been passed if such an adolescent offender had been originally tried by him. In this connection the term, 'adolescent offender' has been defined in Section 2 as meaning any person who has been convicted of any offence punishable with imprisonment, etc.