S.S.DEWAN,J - (1.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner along with three other accused persons was tried for the offence of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who had him guilty, along with others and sentenced him to go imprisonment for life. It is also undisputed that the petitioner had filed an appeal in this Court against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The age of the petitioner was mentioned during his trial as 15 years. The question as to whether he ought to have been dealt with under the provisions of East Punjab Children Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) was, however, not agitated or gone into either at the trial or at the appellate stage. The petitioner was, therefore, firstly housed in the Borstal Jail and later on his attaining the age of 21 years, he was confined in the Central Jail, Jalandhar, where he is now undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment.
(2.) THE first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that at the time of the trial on 18.12.1973, if his age is deemed to be 15 years, then it can safely be said that the petitioner was below 16 years of age on 9th January, 1973, the alleged day of occurrence and hence entitled to the benefit under the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to Section 34 of the Act which pertains to a child offender who is found to have committed an offence of so serious a nature that the Court is of the opinion that no punishment, which under the provisions of the Act, it is authorised to inflict, is sufficient. According to him, in such cases the Court has to order the offender to be kept in safe custody in such a place or manner as it thinks fit and report the case for the orders of the State Government. The proviso under the said Section recites that the period of detention of such a child shall not exceed the maximum period of imprisonment to which the child could have been sentenced for the offence committed by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision in Criminal Writ No. 34 of 1972 (Borstal Inmate Narjit Singh v. State of Punjab) decided by this Court on April 6, 1973, wherein it was held that the only proper course was to report the case to the State Government under Section 34(1) of the Act and it was ordered accordingly. Mr. Bachittar Singh has nothing to repel the contention of the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law laid down in the said authority, I find that the petitioner in the present writ petition ought to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Act. I accordingly directed that the petitioner, who is now confined in Central Jail, Jallandhar, be kept in safe custody in that Jail separate from the hardened criminals having proper facilities for education on such conditions and for such period as the State Government thinks fit, of course, as postulated under the Act. The said period shall not exceed the maximum period of imprisonment to which the petitioner could be sentenced for the offence of murder. I further direct that the State Government shall take the decision under Section 34(1) of the Act within three months from today, with respect to the place and conditions of the petitioner's detention. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.;