Maizuddin vs The State

The judgement of the Court was as follows:-

The Petitioner was convicted u/s 414, Indian Penal Code, by the Presidency magistrate of Calcutta, after which the magistrate, in the view that he is a juvenile offender and should be sent to a reformatory or industrial school, directed him to be forwarded to the magistrate, Juvenile court, Calcutta, with the proceedings for orders that might be deemed proper under the Bengal Children Act, 1922.

The prosecution case was that one silver plate was stolen from the Government House Calcutta, on the night of September 26, 1950, between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. and that the present accused took the stolen property along with another person to a jeweller's shop and sold it there. The accused pleaded not guilty. His case was that he had nothing to do with the selling of the stolen property or for the matter of that with the theft.

The learned magistrate, who heard the evidence, accepted the prosecution case that this accused dishonestly helped in the disposal of stolen property and committed an offence u/s 414, Indian Penal Code. It was argued before us that the evidence against this accused consisted only of the testimony of an accomplice and so the conviction should be set aside. We have looked into the evidence and find that the poddar who identified this accused and another person who went, to sell the silver plate is not an accomplice. The mere fact that he was arrested by the police after the stolen property was recovered from his shop is not a reason to disbelieve his evidence. We are unable to accept the argument that when he purchased the silver at the rate of Re. 1 per told, when the market rate for pure silver was Bs. 1-14 per tola, he must have known that it was stolen property and should not have accepted it. If he had. knowledge or suspicion that it was stolen property, we have no doubt that he would have managed to buy it at a much lesser price.

On the evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned magistrate that the Petitioner has committed an offence u/s 414.

The question, however, arises whether the learned magistrate acted in accordance with law in forwarding the accused, to the Juvenile court, Calcutta, instead of himself dealing with him either by passing a sentence of imprisonment or by admonishing him or by taking any action under the Bengal Children Act. by sending him. to a reformatory school or to an industrial school or otherwise. Section 4 of the Bengal Children Act mentions. the Presidency magistrate as one of the courts by whom the powers conferred by the Act shall be exercised. Section 5 provides that when any magistrate not empowered to pass an order under this Act is of opinion that a child or young person brought before him, or convicted by him, is a proper person to be sent to a reformatory or industrial school, or, to. Be dealt with in any other manner in which the case may be dealt with under this Act, he shall record such opinion and submit his proceedings and forward the child or young person to the nearest Juvenile court. Apparently the learned magistrate has purported to act under the provision of Section 5 of the Bengal Children Act. When, however, he himself was a Presidency magistrate empowered to pass an order under the Act, there is no justification for him and indeed no right in him to take action u/s 5 of the Act and forward the accused to somebody else. The learned magistrate seems to think that as soon as the Juvenile court had been established u/s 37 of the Bengal Children Act, 1922, the Presidency magistrate could not take any action under the Bengal Children Act. If it was right that as soon as a Juvenile court was established, the other magistrates lost jurisdiction to deal with the case, we would have been inclined to hold that such other magistrate would have lost the jurisdiction not only to take action under the Children Act but even to try the case. We can find nothing, however, in the Bengal Children Act which takes away the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to. try such cases after a Juvenile court has been established. In the circumstances, we are bound to hold that the learned Presidency magistrate, who had jurisdiction to try the case against the present accused and had also jurisdiction to pass suitable orders under the Bengal Children Act, 1922, was in error in sending the case to a Juvenile court to take action under this Act (Ben. II of 1922).

As, however, the case is now before us in revision, we ourselves have power u/s 4 of the Bengal Children Act to pass suitable orders under the Act. It seems to us reasonable that we should exercise such powers. On consideration of the circumstances of the case, we direct, in lieu of sentencing, him to any other punishment, that the Petitioner be sent to a reformatory school for a period of five years.

The Rule is disposed of accordingly.