SIMADRI NANDA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law which has necessitated the reference of this criminal miscellaneous application to a Division Bench is formulated as follows:

(2.) THE Petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that while working 88 Secretary of the grain golla at Buguda, he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 74 bags of chemical fertilisers. The learned trying Magistrate by his judgment dated 17 -8 -1964 convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imperilment for II years and pay a fine of Rs. 1500/ - and in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. The learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused by his judgment dated 11 -9 -1965 and maintained the conviction and sentence. Petitioner then preferred a criminal revision before this Court which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 551 of 1965. Barman, J as he then was dismissed the revision by his judgment dated 10 -10 -1966 and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner.

(3.) IT is not disputed before us that the accused Petitioner was below 21 years of age on the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court; that he was entitled to be dealt with according to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act in view of his age at the time of his conviction by the trial Court that in his revision petition before this Court, he took a specific ground claiming extension of benefit of Section 6(1) of the Act and that while disposing of the revision, this claim of Petitioner had not been considered. It is further not disputed by learned Government Advocate that in view of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act, Courts exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction are empowered to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under the Act not only under Sections 3 & 4 and the consequential provisions, but also under Section 6. While construing the provisions contained in Section 11(1) of the Act, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1088 observed as follows: