PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SHAIK VALLI
LAWS(APH)-1969-8-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 22,1969

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Appellant
VERSUS
SHAIK VALLI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.)In these two Criminal Revision Cases we are concerned with 'young persons', 'children', and 'youthful offenders' as denned in Sections 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Children Act. 'Young person'' is defined as meaning 'a person who is fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of sixteen years, 'Child' is defined as meaning 'a person under the age of fourteen years.' 'Youthful offender' is denned as meaning 'a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable with transportation or imprisonment and who at the time of such "conviction was under the age of sixteen years.' Transportation is no longer a punishment which may be imposed under the Criminal Law of India and 'transportation for life' which was one of the punishments specified in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code was replaced by 'Imprisonment for life' by the Amending Act of 1955. Section 53-A of the Penal Code, now, further states that any reference to 'transportation' in any other law for the time being in force shall, (a) if the expression means transportation for life, be construed as a reference to imprisonment for life; (b) if the expression means transportation for any shorter term, be deemed to have been omitted. That is how therefore the word 'Transportation' must be understood wherever it is used in the Children Act. It must be understood to mean 'imprisonment for life', which it may be noted is Under Section 53, IPC a category of punishment distinct from imprisonment, which means imprisonment for a term.
(2.)In S.C. No 70 of 1968, Sri Y. Srikrishna Murthy, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cuddapah, convicted Shaik Valli, a young person as defined under the Children Act, of offences Under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years respectively. He thought that Section 23 (1) of the Children Act precluded him from committing the accused straightway to prison. He therefore directed the accused to be detained in a Senior Certified School till he attained age and further directed that he should thereafter suffer imprisonment for the terms to which he was sentenced.
(3.)The same learned Judge, later as Additional Sessions Judge of Srikakulam, convicted Yadam Kamaraju and Puvvu Purushottam, two children as defined under the Children Act, of offences Under Section 379 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with 34, IPC On the count Under Section 379 read with Section 34 each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and on the count Under Section 302 read with Section 34 each was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. In lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for 3 years the learned Sessions Judge directed the two accused to be detained in Senior Certified School till they attained the age of 18 years and in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for life he directed them to be detained in a Senior Certified school till they attained the ago of 18 years and thereafter to be sent to a Borstal School.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.