Law: Bombay Children Act (XIII of 1924)

Section: 27

(i)    Siad Children Act (XIV of 1955)-- --------- S. I10(d) read with Bombay Children Act (Xlil of 1924)~S  27(h) & Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—Ss. 435, 439 & 561-A— Youthful offender— Conviction of-—Challenge to—Trial Court pro­ceeding with case and convicting petitioner under S. 27(h) of Bombay Children Act despite repeal of same at time of trial—Held : Convic­tions under Bombay Children Act being illegal, same to be set aside and ease to be remanded with directions to be proceeded under Siad Children Act, 1955. [P. 254] A & B fii)   Bombay CMMtea Act  (XIII of 1924)— ——S. 27 (h)—See : Sind Children Act (XFV of 1*55}—S. 110 (d). (fii) CrimsBai Procedure Code (V of 1898).... ——Ss. 435, 439 & 561-A-S. H0(d). JUDGMENT These two Criminal Revision Applications Numbers Cr. Rev. 113/81 and Cr. 114/81 have been filed under Sections 435/439, 561-A Cr. P. C. challenge the convictions of the applicant in two separate cases under Bombay Children Act, 1924. The applicant was challaned under Section 302 IP P C aad !3-D Arms Ordinance and be has been convicted under Section 102 P P C and sentenced {<> snfTcr imprisonment for JO ysss-f under Section  13-D Arms Ordinance to   suffer R.  I.  for one year  by Sessions Judge, Dadu in separate judgment dated 22-1G-1981. 2.               ib these revisions one legs! point is involved therefore I propose to dispose of both the revisions by £ single order, 3.               The relevant facts are that on S-10-1974 applicant who was student of Government High School Dadu committed murder of Ghulam Mustafa a college student by firing Pistol shot. The learned Sessions Judge convict­ ed the applicant in two accounts in separate judgment as stated above. The learned Judge in his judgment bas mentioned that at the time of incident applicant was a child. He proceeded with the case under  the provisions of…