PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Public Prosecutor has filed this Revision Case against the order in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Chingleput in proceedings under Section 29 of the Madras Children Act (IV of 1920). This section so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads:

(2.) ON 1st April, 1960, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Chingleput Range, who is an authorised person under the above section applied to the District Magistrate (Judicial), Chingelput, to certify the detention of the girl Geetha concerned in this case in Sivananda Sisu, Rakshana Mandir, Kattupakkam, as she is a handicapped destitute and an orphan with none to exercise proper guardianship. The District Magistrate sent this application for remarks of the Probation Officer and he reported that he was unable to know whether the girl who was then aged only four was destitute or not and therefore he was not in a position to make any recommendation. On this report, the District Magistrate examined the Deputy Inspector of Schools who stated that he had no personal knowledge that the child was a destitute and that he acted on the information given to him by the Headmistress of Dr. Mangalam, Higher Elementary School. The District Magistrate, therefore, passed an order dismissing the petition of the Deputy Inspector of Schools recommending admission of the girl into Sivananda Sisu Rakshana Mandir as a destitute for the reason that the Deputy Inspector has no personal knowledge about her condition and the Probation Officer could not recommend her detention as a destitute. Against this order one Nagalakshmi Ammal, who then worked as a cook, filed an appeal claiming herself to be interested in the girl as her mother's sister and as a foster mother. In the course of this appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput examined one S.V. Iyer, the Executive Secretary Sivananda Sisu Rakshna Mandir, Tambaram, as P.W. 2 when it was disclosed that the child has been burnt in a fire, that P.W. 2 had her admitted in the General Hospital, that she has no parent except the maternal aunt Nagalakshmi, that P.W. 1 made this application to the District Magistrate at his instance as at that time he was not an authorised person and that he had assisted Nagalakshmi to file the appeal.

(3.) SRI Faizi Muhammed who has been good enough to appear amicus curiae for the respondent child drew my attention to Section 42 of the Act relating to the appellate and revisional jurisdiction and pointed out that on the language of Section 42, the appeal by Nagalakshmi would appear not to be competent.