B SHANKARAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner, who is adolescent convict undergoing imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, committed by him in the year 1987. It is stated in the affidavit that the 1st petitioner hails from a poor family; her husband died when the 2nd petitioner was hardly two years old. Without the support of the husband, the first petitioner had to face difficulty in bringing up the 2nd petitioner and to provide him proper education. It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner studied upto 6th class only in a primary school at Kothapet and because of poverty, further studies could not be prosecuted by the 2nd petitioner. The family occupation of the petitioners is tapping. In order to augment, the family requirement, the 2nd petitioner was engaged in family occupation i.e., tapping of trees and selling the toddy. It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 IPC by judgment dt.10-4-1989 in Sessions Case No.73/88 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District. Against the conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No.500/89 was filed and a Division Bench of this court confirmed the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. The 2nd petitioner is undergoing imprisonment right from 10-4-1989 i.e., the date of Judgment in S.C. No.73/88. It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner is an adolescent and has not even completed 23 years of age as on today. As on the date of commission of the offence, it is averred, he was hardly 18 years. It is further averred that an obligation was cast on the trial Court under Rule 98 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, to consider whether the 2nd petitioner could be sent to Borstal School. It is also stated that the trial court has failed to apply its mind with respect to its powers vested in it under Section 8 of the A.P. Borstal Schools Act,1925 (for short 'the Act'). Under these circumstances, there is miscarriage of justice in so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned.

(2.) It is further stated that the petitioners were advised in the year 1990 to make an application to the respondents seeking transfer of the 2nd petitioner from jail to the borstal school, so that he could stay there and reform himself. Under this background, the 1st petitioner seems to have made a representation to the 2nd respondent for considering the case of the 2nd petitioner for sending him to borstal school. On the basis of the application, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, seems to have written letter No.CPH/JCI/233/91, dt.9-1-91 to the District Educational Officer, Rangareddy district requesting him to send particulars of age and educational qualifications of the 2nd petitioner. The District Educational Officer in turn seems to have requested the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar to furnish the said particulars. It is further averred that the 1st petitioner has obtained from the school bona fide certificate of the 2nd petitioner issued by the Head Master, CUPS, Kothapet (N) to the effect of the age of the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that the Probation Officer, Rangareddy district also seems to have recommended the case of the 2nd petitioner for being sent to borstal school and the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad also seems to have recommended that the 2nd petitioner be sent to borstal school. It is averred that despite receiving all the particulars, there was delay in the respondents taking appropriate action in time. Under these circumstances, W.P.No.5633/92 was filed in this court. This court by an interim order directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dt.3-9-1990 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for transferring the 2nd petitioner to borstal school. It is now stated that pursuant to the said interim direction, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt. No.2026, Home(Prisons-B) Department, dated 20-6-1992 rejecting to send the 2nd petitioner to borstal school. Questioning the said rejection order in G.O.Rt.No.2026, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter justifying the rejection order. As on the date of passing the impugned order, the 2nd petitioner had attained the age of 22 years and it was felt that one year period left, is not sufficient for the 2nd petitioner to get himself reformed.