1975 P Cr (PLP)

(2) Cont. Abrasions two on left elbow joint posteriorly ' apart x ' each." This has resulted in extensive internal damage including the fracture of the left parietal bone and intracranial haemorrhage.

5. The serious question, however, that was argued before me was that under section 27 of the Bombay Children s Act it was not incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to send the applicant to the Juvenile Jail and indeed, contrarily, it was her duty to consider the various ways in which the applicant could be dealt with. Section 27 of Bombay Children's Act reads as follows: "(27) Methods of dealing with children charged with offences. (1) Where a child charged with any offence is tried by any Court, and the Court is satisfied of his guilt, the Court shall take into considera tion the manner in which, under the provisions of this or any other Act enabling the Court to deal with the case, the case should be dealt with, namely, whether; (a) by discharging the offender after due admonition; or (b) 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 responsible for his good behaviour; or (c) by so discharging the offender and placing him under the supervi sion of a person named by the Court; or (cc) by releasing the offender on probation of good conduct; or (d) by sending the offender to a certified school; or (e) Omitted. (ee) by sentencing the offender to caning in cases where the conduct of the offender has been such as to lead the Court to believe the no other punishment would be effective; or (f) by ordering the offender to pay a fine; or (g) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to pay a fine; or (h) where the offender is a child of fourteen years of age or upwards, by sentencing him to imprisonment; or (i) by dealing with the case in any other manner in which it may legally be dealt with; Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the Court to deal with any case in any manner in which it could not deal with the case from this section. (2) Where a child is charged with an offence punishable with fine only, and is dealt with under clause (f ) of subsection (1), the Court may, if it thinks fit, add a sentence of caning in default of paying of fine, if it is satisfied that the offender is able to pay the fine. (3) If in any such case as is described in subsection (2), the offender has previously undergone a sentence of caning passed under that subsection he may, in default of payment of fine, be sent to a certified school for a period not exceeding three years." Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Usman v. State (P L D 1961 Kar. 303) where a learned Single Judge of this Court did substitute for an order of detention an order that the applicant be committed to the care of a parent or guardian or any other adult relative. I agree with that case and I think it was the duty of the learned President to consider whether it was not proper to deal with him in some other manner permitted by law. Upon the material before me I am in no position to judge how otherwise the applicant could or should have been treated and I, therefore, allowing this revision application, set aside the order passed and remand the case back to the Juvenile Court and direct that the President, Juvenile Court, shall apply his mind to the circumstances of the case and consider what the proper order should be. This is not to be construed as meaning that he may not eventually come to the conclusion that the order which the late President passed was in fact the proper order; all I am directing is that the President apply his mind and decide what ought to be the order. Case remanded.