In Re: Sekharan

Somasundaram, J.—This is a criminal revision case by the petitioner against his conviction by the judgment of the Juvenile Court, dated 19th January, 1954. According to the entry in the records, the petitioner is aged about 13 years. The petitioner is charged under S. 4(1)(g)of the Madras Prohibition Act. The petitioner was brought before the Juvenile Court on 5th January 1954. From the records I find the following :

Accused present. Property not produced. J. O. pleads not guilty. Produce witnesses and property on 12 1-1954. Adjourned to 12-1-1964. J. O. to continue on police bail.

On 12th January 1954, the following is the note:

Property produced to be filed in Court. The juvenile again restates that it is not his property and he is not guilty. Remand until 19-1-1959. (The date is probably a mistake for 19-1-1954). Call for P.O.'s report and witnesses.

The nest order that is passed by the Court is on 19-1-1954 which is the judgment by the Court in the case. Against that judgment the petitioner has brought this present revision case.

It is clear from the records that the petitioner pleaded not guilty on 5th January 1954 when he was produced before the Court and the case was adjourned from 5th January 1954 to 12th January 1954 and from 12th January 1954 to I9th January 1954. No witnesses for prosecution were examined on any of the days. On probation officer's report the Juvenile Court felt, in the best interest of the petitioner to certify him to Senior Certified School, Chingleput, for a period of 3 years. This is in short the judgment.

The procedure for the trial of cases wherein the children commit offences is prescribed by R. 3 of the Rules framed under the Madras Children Act. According to that rule the procedure is that of summons procedure whether the case is one of summons or warrant case. The rule regarding summons procedure is laid down in S. 244, Crl. P. C. If the accused does not make admissions, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defense. In this case the petitioner pleaded not guilty and therefore the Magistrate must hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. As evidence was not produced, the case was adjourned from time to time to enable the prosecution to produce evidence. The records do not show that any witnesses were examined. So without any evidence being taken the petitioner was convicted merely on the report of the probation officer. The procedure prescribed for summons case has been left severely alone in the procedure code, without being followed in the Court. The first thing I wish to point out to the Juvenile Court regarding the report of the probation officer is that it is not evidence. The second thing is that without taking evidence as prescribed in the Crl.P.C., for the trial of summons case, no person can be convicted. In this case evidence was not taken and on the probation officer's report alone (which is not evidence) the petitioner has been convicted. Even principles of natural justice do not appear to have been observed. I cannot understand how, without hearing evidence For prosecution and without evidence being recorded, and without giving an opportunity to the accused to meet that evidence, as required under the law, he could be convicted at all. In fact the order does not say that the petitioner is convicted. It is to be inferred from the final order passed. The order says that the petitioner has confessed to the probation officer that he was guilty but now denied it. Even the probation officer was not examined as a witness. At least if he was examined, he would have spoken to the alleged admission of the guilty by the petitioner. Even that was not done. Without evidence being taken and merely on the report of the probation officer who has not been examined, the three lady members of the juvenile Court have felt that in the best interests of the boy, that they should certify him to the senior certified school, Chingleput, for a period of three years. I do not know in how many cases, which have not come in revision or appeal there have been such total violations of the procedure prescribed by law. The result is that the order passed is illegal and has to be set aside. It is therefore set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty The bail bond is cancelled.