STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. VALLABHAPURAM RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in this appeal by Special Leave is whether on the coming into force of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') an adolescent offender who is sentenced to imprisonment for life on being convicted of an offence for which death is also one of the punishments prescribed by law and who later on is by an order made by the State Government directed to be sent to a Borstal School under section 10-A of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is liable to be kept in a Borstal School or in a prison at least for a period of fourteen years.

(2.) The respondent Vallabhapuram Ravi was born on April 28, 1960. Unfortunately owing to an incident which took place when. he was still in his teens, he was convicted of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life on April 29, 1980 in the Sessions Case No. 51 of 1980 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On September 12, 1980 the State Government of Andhra Pradesh on being satisfied that it would be to the advantage of the respondent if he was transferred to a Borstal School made an order under section 10-A of the Act in G.O. Rt. No. 2394 Home (Prisons-B) Department dated September 12, 1980 directing that he should be detained in a Borstal School to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence till he attained the age of 23 years. Accordingly he was transferred to the Borstal School at Visakhapatnam on October 14,1980. The respondent was classified as a Special -Star. Grade Inmate which was the highest classification on the basis of industrious and good conduct under section 19-C of the Act. Since he was not released on his attaining 23 years of age on April 28, 1983 in accordance with the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bondili Jagannath Singh v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1983) 2 APLJ (HQ 262: (190 Cri LJ 1740), he sent a letter to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh requesting it to issue a writ of habeas corpus to the State Government to release him. The High Court treated the letter as a writ petition and after hearing the State Government passed an order on November 29, 1983 in Writ Petition No. 6601 of 1983 directing the State Government to release the respondent. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the State Government has filed this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(3.) Owing to the persistent efforts of public spirited persons like Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise (1857-1937) and the agitation which was carried on by leading members of the community two public enquiries were instituted in England in the year 1894 into the administration of prisons. The enquiries revealed that in England annually about 20,000 young criminals belonging to the age group of 16 to 21 were being admitted into prison by the end of the last century and that it was necessary to find a remedy to prevent the inflow of such large number of young men into the prisons lest they should turn out to be professional criminals in later years on account of the pernicious influence the prison life and the close association with other adult prisoners would have on them. This led to the passing of two laws by the British Parliament, namely, the Prevention of Crime (Borstal) Act, 1908 and the Children Act, 1908. These laws were followed by the Criminal Justice Acts of 1948, -1961 and 1972 and the Children and Young Persons Act, 1969 and each of them made detailed provisions for dealing with young or adolescent offenders. The principle underlying these laws was that if children or adolescents found to be guilty of offences by criminal courts were in lieu of ordinary sentence of imprisonment kept in a special form of detention in a place other than a prison, of which the purpose was to develop mentally, physically and morally all inmates by giving them necessary training, there was every likelihood of such persons being reformed and accepted by society as persons who had no inclination to commit crimes in the future. It was generally felt that every offender up to a certain age "may be regarded as a potentially good citizen; that his lapse into crime may be due either to physical degeneracy or bad social environment; that it is the duty of the State at least to try to effect a cure, and not to class the offender off-hand and without experiment with the adult professional' criminal" (See Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1962-Edn., Val. III at page 923). This system of treatment of juvenile or adolescent offenders came to be called the 'Borstal System' after the village of Borstal Kent (England) where the early experiments on boys between the ages of 16 and 21 were carried out in an old convict prison before the passing of the abovementioned Acts of 1908. The Borstal System subsequently became popular in all the commonwealth countries and was introduced through laws passed for the purpose of achieving its object. One such law is the Act which was enacted in the year 1925. Its object was to make provision for the establishment and regulation of Borstal Schools for detention and training of adolescent offenders. The relevant provisions of the Act i.e. sections 2(1) and (2), 8 and 10-A are extracted below for, ready reference :