LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus VALLABHAPURAM RAVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ' • 729 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v • VALLABHAPURAM RAVI September 14, 1984 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] Code a/Criminal Procedure, J973-S.433A-Whether bars release of an adolescent offender transferred to Borstal School under s.10-A of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925, as a1nended, after he has attained age of 23 years. Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925-S. !O-A introduced by the Madras Borstal Schools (A1ne11dment) Act, 1939 (Madras ActXJ/i of 1939)-S.IO-A not affected by S.433A of1he Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and must be given full affect to. The respondent, an adolescent, was convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. After the respondent had undergone the sentence for a few months in a prison, he was ordered to be detained in a Borstal School under an order made by the appellant State Government under section iO-A oftbe Andhra Borstal . Schools Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to serve unexpired portion of the sentence till he attained the age of 23 years. Since the respondent was not released on his attaining the age of 23 years, the respondent filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the appellant to release the respondent. Hence this appeal by the State Government by special leave. kThe appellant contended that in view of the mandate of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 any person who was sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death was one of the punishments provided by law could not be released from prison unless he had served at Jcast 14 years of imprisonment even though by an order made under section 10-A of the Act he had been detained in a Borstal school. Dismissing the appeal, A B c D E HELD: The appellant's contention overlooks the words 'prison• and 'impri- ~ sonment' in section 433A of the Code and the effect of an order made by the State Government under section 10-A of the Act read with section 8 thereof. Entry 4 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which reads as "4. Prisons, reformatories, Borstal institutions and other institutions of a like nature, and persons detained therein ..• " also makes a distinction between a prison and a Borstal institution. Section 433A of the Code refers to a person who is actually undergoing imprisonment. As SOOD at an order is made under 1.10.A of tho Act H A B c D E F 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985j l S.C.R. in respect of a person who is sentenced to imprisonn1ent for life, and he is sent to a Borstal school pursuant thereto, he ceases to be a prisoner undergoing imprison- ment. He would be a detenu in a Borstal school and the provisions of section 8 of the Act will have to be given their full effect in hi'> case also. It is true that there is some apparent contradiction between the two sentences of section 10-A. But having regard to the object of the legislation and the meaning of the words 'as if' in the second sentence, we should extend all the privileges available to an offender detained under section 8 of the Act to a pri<;oner who is directed to be transferred to a Borstal school und~r section 10 A. Under section 8 of the Act the person detained in a Borstal school can be kept there for a maximum period of five years and in no case after he has attained 23 years of age. There is no provision for sending him back to prison except section 14 of the Act which will not be applicable to a person against whom no report is 111ade by the Superin- tendent of a Borstal school as stated therein. If section 14 of the Act is inappli- cable there is no legal way in which he can be sent back to prison to satisfy the requirements of section 433A of the Code, Moreover, an anomalous situation which arises in the case of a person sent to a Borstal school under section 10-A of the Act is that if the period of detention in a Borstal schOol is not to be coun- ted as the period of imprisonment because detention is ordered in lieu of impri- sonn1ent and because Borstal school is not a prison then such person cannot claim by way of credit the period of detention in a Borstal school while con1puting the fourteen years of imprisonment mentioned in section 433A of the Code. If that is so, should he undergo an extra period of imprisonment equivalent to the period of his detenti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.