AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 157 wordsJohn Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.—Himai was convicted of the offence punishable u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment therefor. The Magistrate, purporting to act u/s 8 of Act No. VIII of 1897, substituted for that order of imprisonment an order for detention in a Reformatory School. The Magistrate found that Himai was fifteen years of age. Consequently Himai was not a "youthful offender" within the meaning of Section 4 of Act No. VIII of 1897 at the time of his conviction. The order substituting detention in a Reformatory School for imprisonment was therefore illegal.
But Section 16 of Act No. VIII of 1897, precludes this Court from interfering in appeal or revision with an order for detention in a Reformatory School passed in substitution for an order of transportation or imprisonment. We can put no other construction upon Section 16. We accordingly dismiss, this application for revision.