JEEVANLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the accused in C. C. No. 18572 of 1964 on the file of the IV Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras, to revise the order of the IV Presidency Magistrate rejecting their application that they cannot be tried under Section 409 I. P. C. , having regard to the provisions contained in the Pawn Brokers Act.

(2.) THE learned IV Presidency Magistrate has, on the charge-sheet filed by the police, framed three charges against the petitioners under Section 409 I. P. C. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the offence with which they were charged is punishable under Section 16 (7) of the Pawn Brokers Act, and that the special provisions of the Pawn Brokers Act override the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In my opinion the learned IV Presidency Magistrate has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the petitioners relied on Gopal Ji v. Shree Chand (S) in support of his contention that where there is a special Act dealing with the special subject, resort should be had to that Act instead of to a general provision which is exercisable or which is available under extraordinary circumstances only. The writ of Habeas Corpus is a high prerogative writ in England which could be invoked in appropriate cases to restore minors to proper custody when they were in illegal detention. But the writ was never intended to be utilised or used for purposes of merely determining rival claims of competing guardians. Section 491 Cr. P. C. is a general power in the nature of haheas corpus. It was pointed out in the above decision that the power under the Guardians and Wards Act is a power under a special Act dealing with a special subject, resort should be had to that Act instead of to a general provision which was exercisable or which was available under the extraordinary circumstances only.