Emperor Vs. Abdul Rahman Ismail

juvenile prison at dharwar-juvenile offender-sentence passed on the juvenile offender cannot be more severe than that imposed on his adult co-accused with previous convictions.;two persons were convicted of abetment of the offences of house-breaking and theft. one of them who was an adult and bad three previous convictions was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment; while the other, who was a lad of sixteen, was sentenced to be detained under rigorous imprisonment in the juvenile prison at dharwar for two years:-;reducing the sentence pasaed on the juvenile offender to one year, that he could not be sentenced to punishment more severe than that' imposed on the other accused who had previous convictions. - - clearly, since the first accused, who was not only an adult but also had been previously convicted, only got one year's rigorous imprisonment, the second accused would, in the ordinary course, have been sentenced to less than one year......walls of the dharwar institution for two years. it is nowhere laid down that a magistrate has such powers to increase the sentence of imprisonment on this ground. however desirable it might be for the magistrates to have such powers, the sentence is one under the indian penal code, but as the rules with regard to the detention, of a juvenile in the dharwar jail provide that no one should be admitted into the jail unless he has been sentenced to a period of one year or upwards, the result is, that in the case of juveniles magistrates increase the sentences in many cases up to one year so as to enable them to be sent to the dharwar jail instead of to the ordinary jail, and to that extent we might overlook the fact that they increase the sentences on juveniles beyond what the sentences would amount to in the case of adults in order that juveniles should get the advantage of being detained in the juvenile prison, we doubt very much whether they are entitled to go beyond that and to sentence a juvenile to a period, as in this case, of two years, merely because they think that such detention would be to the benefit of the accused. we have to consider in the first instance the offence committed. clearly, since the first accused, who was not only an adult but also had been previously convicted, only got one year's rigorous imprisonment, the second accused would, in the ordinary course, have been sentenced to less than one year. for these reasons we think the sentence must be reduced to one year.shah, j.2. i agree.