GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. E KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) As the point involved in these appeals is common, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate General questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge in these appeals and submits that there is no material on record to show that the life convicts-respondents are between the age of 16 to 21 years. In the absence of enquiry as to the determination of the age by the Authorities as per the provisions of the A.P. Borstal School Act, 1925 (for short 'Act'), the learned single Judge erred in issuing directions to the appellants to send the respondents, who are undergoing imprisonment for life in different prisons of the State, treating them as adolescent offenders for detention in the Borstal school. Next, he contended that the learned single Judge failed to take notice as it is the discretion of the State Government, the Inspector General of Prisons and the Judge who passes the sentence, and, therefore no mandamus can be issued directing the exercising of discretion in a particular manner. On the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the life convicts-respondents were not adolescent offenders within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act on the date of conviction, on 4/07/1996, we directed the appellants to produce the respondents for determination of their ages before the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, who was directed to get them throughly examined for determination of their ages and submit a report to this Court.