P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

These are two Criminal Revisions by one Usman alias Subhat He has been convicted by the learned Additional City Magistrate and President, Juvenile Court, Karachi for having committed thefts on two occasions' namely, on 3rd of September 1959, and on 11 of December 1959, In both the cases the applicant committed theft by pick‑pocketing. Mr. Rafeeq Ahmad, the learned Advo cate for the applicant confined his contention to the question of sentence only. The applicant has been convicted in both the Revision applications to undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment under section 27 (1) (h) of tae Bombay Children Act, 1924.

2. Mr. Rafeeq Ahmad Contended that under section 22 of the Bombay Children Act, 1924 the applicant should not have been committed to prison by the learned Magistrate In order to appreciate the contention o f Mr. Rafeeq Ahmad it would be useful to reproduce section 22 of the Bombay Children Act, 1924. It reads as under:‑ "

22. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law no child shall be sentenced to death or transportation or committed to prison: Provided that a child who is fourteen years of age or upward may be committed to prison where the Court certified that he is of so unruly or so depraved a character that he is not a fit person to be sent to a certified school and that none of the other methods in which the case may legally be dealt with is suitable." It is true that no child can by committed to prison. The applicant is admittedly a child within the definition of the Bombay Children Act, 1924, inasmuch as he Wks below 16 years of age at the time when he was convicted. The proviso to the section makes it., clear that under certain circumstances a child can be committed to prison when the Court certifies that he is so unruly or so depraved a character that he;s not fit person to be sent to a certified school. In this cake the learned Magistrate observed as under:‑ "It is evident from the facts stated above in my enquiry that the offender has become habitual and needs reform, but he is almost or already 16 years of age and I sentence him to imprisonment in the Central Jail for a period of 2 years simple imprisonment." The facts mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her Judgment disclose that the applicant had been in the Remand Home on 15 occasions for different offends mostly for thefts. One thing is clear that if the applicant is tent to the Remand Home it is very likely that he may affect the character of other inmates of the Remand Home. He is before me and appears to be quite intelli gent. He is likely by his intelligence to influence the other children in the Remand Home to his own ways of behaviour. The learned Magistrate, however, has not mentioned that the applicant cannot be dealt with legally in any other suitable way.

3. Under section 27 of the Bombay Children Act methods are provided of dealing with children charged with offences. One of the methods is by committing the offender to the care of his parent, guardian, other adult relative or other fit person on such parent, guardian, relative or person executing a bond to be respon sible for his good behaviour. I find from the Judgment of the learned Magistrate that she bas not given any reason why this method would not have served the ends of justice. If someone responsible executes a bond for substantial amount I have no doubt he will see that the applicant conducts himself like an honest person and does not commit any offence. It would appear from 5 the Judgment of the learned Magistrate that the applicant was mostly convicted for theft by pick‑pocketing.

4. Mr. Qureshi, the‑learned Advocate for the State concedes that in the circumstances of the present case it would be better in the interests of justice if the applicant is given one more chance to reform himself under the guardianship of someone who will furnish substantial security in this Court for at least two years. Mr. Rafeeq Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the applicant, agrees to these conditions.

5. As I have already observed interest of justice requires that the applicant should be given one more chance to become a useful citizen. I would, therefore, order that the applicant should be committed to the care of his parent, guardian or any other adult relative. In case no relative is willing to come forward to accept B responsibility of the applicant's good behaviour any other‑ person who is willing to take scare of the applicant should execute a bond for his responsibility for the good behaviour of the applicant in the sum of Rs. 5,000 in this Court. The bail bond of the applicant is cancelled. Whenever any relative of the' applicant or someone else were to furnish the bond as already ordered for the good behaviour of the applicant, he will be released. K. B. A. Order accordingly.