JEGADEESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of one Chezhian, who is a life convict. By judgment, dated 28.02.2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 237 of 2004 convicted him under Sections 148, 341 and 302 IPC (3 counts) and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by him in C.A. No. 156 of 2007 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment, dated 08.04.2008. Thus, the sentence imposed on him has become final. While so, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking to quash the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the convict Chezhian and to set him at liberty. According to the petitioner, the life convict Chezhian is entitled for the benefits of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal School Act and therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by this Court, are not sustainable and therefore, the said substantive sentence of imprisonment should be quashed and the convict should be set at liberty.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(3.) In our considered opinion, the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable and the relief sought for in the Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be granted, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in A.Thangammal vs. State,2008 1 MadLJ(Cri) 834. In the said case, a question arose as to whether it is mandatory that in all cases, where an adolescent offender as defined in the Act is convicted, the accused should be ordered to be detained in the Borstal school in lieu of substantive sentence of imprisonment. The Full Bench in Paragraph No. 26 has dealt with the same as follows: