IN RE: IBRAHIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the District Magistrate (Judicial), Coimbatore under the following circumstances. The Taluk First Class Magistrate, Gudalur, committed on 26th August, 1955, the respondent in M.C. No. 15 of 1955 on his file to the Borstal School Palamkottah, for a period of two years. There is a Government notification dated 19th December, 1955, under which the Taluk First Class Magistrate in question was invested by the Governor under Section 6 of the Borstal Schools Act with all the powers conferred on a Court by the said Act. The District Magistrate, is, therefore, of the opinion that on the 26th August, 1955, the Taluk First Class Magistrate was not empowered to exercise the powers under the Borstal Schools Act and hence this reference.

(2.) THAT the magistrate in question is a First Class Magistrate is not in doubt But the question is whether he should be specially empowered by the State Govern ment to act under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) NOW , under Clause (f) "any Magistrate of the first class" is mentioned, Instead of there being a comma after the expression "any Magistrate of the first class" the clause simply reads "any Magistrate of the first class of any bench of Magistrates constituted under Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf." Does the expression "specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf " qualify only the expression "any bench of Magistrates constituted under Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure" or both the expressions, viz., "any Magistrate of the first class" and " any bench of Magistrates constituted under Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898"? If it is to qualify the expression "any Magistrate of the first class" also, then it will read as follows: