1968 P Cr (PLP)

This case was fixed for Kacha Peshi and for orders on Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 141, but, since Mr. Muhammad Haleem, Assistant Advocate-General was present in Court, he waived the notice; and accordingly the matter was finally heard.

2. The applicant, who, according to the judgment of the trial Court, war under sixteen years of age, was arrested on the 4th day of October 1967, at Karachi Cantonment, by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, alleged under suspicion circumstances. On his search having been carried out, a 12 bore gun (apparently a country made pistol), four cartridges, and two gold `Balls' were recovered from his person. He was accordingly challaned under section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 in the Court of Mrs. Surriya Ahmad Pai, who, after trial, remanded him to two years detention at Juvenile Jail, Landhi. His appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi; on the 19th day of January 1968. . Through this Revision, he has assailed his conviction and sentence.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant, did not contest the petitioner's conviction on merits, but he stated that, being a person of less than sixteen years of age, a student of IX standard and not a previous convict, he should have been dealt with under the more benevolent provisions ref section 27 of the Bombay Children Act, 1924 and should not have been sent to the Juvenile Jail for a period of ,two years. In support of his argument, he referred to a judgment reported as Hiromal v. Emperor (A I R 1948 Sind 63). In that case a child of fifteen years of age was sentenced to transportation for life after his trial under section 302, P. P. C. but the High Court set aside his conviction and sentence and instead released him to the care of his guardian under section 27 (b) of the Bombay Children Act, 1924, on the condition that two bonds in the sum of Its. 5,000 each were to be furnished for his good behaviour for three years. The ratio of that judgment fully applies to the facts of the present case, and Mr. Muhammad Haleem, the learned Assistant Advocate General frankly conceded that it had laid down the correct law.

4. For all these reasons I am of the view that it would expedient if, instead of keeping the petitioner in detention, h was released to the care of his guardian, Abdul Karim, his real uncle (his father being dead), on the condition that his said guardian shall furnish a bond of Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction either of the trial Court, or of this Court under section 27 (b) o' the Bombay Children Act, 1924 for the good behaviour of the applicant for a period of two years from the date of conviction and sentence.

5. The Revision Application is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.