Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... vs Smt. Khajabanu And Anr. on 26 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD(CRI)495, 1998(2)ALT261
Bench: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Ramesh Madhav Bapat
ORDER
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, A.C.J.
1. These two writ appeals raise the question of validity of the direction of the learned single Judge directing that the convict be sent to Borstal School under Section 10 (A) of the Borstal School Act.
2. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader for Home, it will not be necessary to refer to the facts of the case. However, we prefer to note that the contentions are covered by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court. Firstly, it is contended that at the time of issuing direction by the learned single Judge, the adolescent convict should have atleast a minimum period of two years for reformation in the Borstal School. A Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Komalla Krishnaiah, (D.B.) dealing with similar submission observed as follows;
"We are in full agreement with the following view expressed by the learned Judge how the available limited period will have the desired effect of reforming the respondent herein:
'The petitioner would be completing 23 years of age in another six months and 6 days. Although this period appears to be too short for his effective reformation, viewed against the prospect of the petitioner remaining in jail for another 11 years and mixing with hardened criminals, I am inclined to take the view that committing him to Borstal School until he completes the age of 23 years would have the desired effect of reforming him. Otherwise, he would end up as a hardened criminal with no prospect of his coming out of prison a reformed man'."
Therefore, this contention has to be rejected.
3. It is secondly contended that in the event of the Court finding that consideration of the case of the adolescent convict by the Government is not proper, it should direct the Government to reconsider the matter but cannot issue the Mandamus to transfer adolescent convict to the Borstal School. Even this contention is covered by the Judgment cited supra as well as by the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. v. E. Kumar, (D.B.). The Court observed as follows:
"We are fully satisfied that the authorities have failed to exercise the discretionary powers vested in them under the Act in not transferring the adolescent offenders for detention in Borstal School. We do not see any illegality in the learned Single Judge issuing Mandamus directing the appellants to transfer the adolescent offenders to the Borstal School under the provisions of the Act."
4. In view of the pronouncements of this Court cited supra, we find no merit in the writ appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.