SANJAY KUMAR GOKULPURE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner stands convicted under Section 302, Indian penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He is undergoing that sentence and is at present lodged in Central Jail, Jabalpur. In this petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus, his claim is that since on the date of his conviction, i. e. . 30-8-1983. he was below 19 years of age, he is entitled to benefits under the M. P. Borstal Act, 1928 and is accordingly, entitled to be released forthwith. His alternative prayer is that the district Judge who convicted him should be asked to make an inquiry as to his age and then to make recommendation to the State Government for making a direction. In the return filed on behalf of the State Government, the principal objection to the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus prayed for is that the provisions of the Borstal Act are not attracted to persons convicted for an offence punishable with death. Obviously the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code is punishable with death, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the M. P. Borstal Act.

(2.) SECTION 2 (i) of the M. P. Borstal Act, 1928 defined 'offence' as under :

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not right in contending that he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the M. P. Borstal Act nor is he entitled to any direction for his release. Precisely for this reason, he is not entitled to a direction to the District Judge for making an inquiry as to his age. The petition is dismissed but with any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.