Mishra, J.
1. Lakshmi, the detenu's mother, has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that her son Murugan, aged 15 years, has been illegally detained by the respondent. It appears that one Venkatesan of Thuvariman Agraharam made a complaint to the respondent Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai South, that while he and his wife were away therefrom. Someone entered into the house through the ventilator and committed theft of cash and jewels. Petitioner's son Murugan was taken in custody on suspicion in connection with the said case on 8-2-1991 by the respondent who, according to the petitioner, told her that he would send back her son immediately after interrogation. She has, however, alleged that she and her husband waited till the next morning but the boy (their son) did not return. So they went to the police station where they saw Murugan in custody. The respondent told them that the investigation of the case was not yet over and that he would send their son back after investigation. It is thereafter stated in the affidavit.
'Believing his words I came away. Thereafter since my boy had not returned home even after four days. I again went to the police station and found my son there suffering from severe pain. I noticed some swellings over his forearm and legs. My son Murugan told me that the police was administering him 3rd degree methods in order to make him confess to the guilt.'
I came and complained to the villagers and none could interfere on my behalf fearing for their own safety. Again I visited the police station about three days back and found my son in a very bad shape and he was practically unable to move about. When I implored the police to release my son they threatened to take me into custody and that I would meet the same fate as my minor son. Fearing that I came to Madurai and consulted the lawyer as to what I should do. I was advised to go to Madras and move the High Court for the release of my minor son Murugan.'
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by K. Mohan Duraisamy, Inspector of Police, Thirunagar, Madurai Rural District, on behalf of the respondent, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai South, the allegation that one Venkatesan of Thuvariman Agraharam had made a complaint to him (respondent) has not been denied but it is stated that the complaint was filed on 7-2-1991 at about 22.30 hrs. stating that there was a house breaking in his house in which he lost jewels and cash worth Rs. 50,000/-. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that during the investigation he arranged for the finger prints expert to detect the finger prints at the scene of Crime and interrogated about 15 persons and added.
'On 9-2-91 the petitioner's son Murugan was also interrogated by me; during the course of interrogation his finger prints were taken according to the procedure laid down by the Police Standing Order. The petitioner's son Murugan was sent away after interrogation and after obtaining his specimen finger prints. I state that on 11-2-91 I was informed by the finger print expert that two chance prints developed from the scene of occurrence tallied with the specimen finger print of the petitioner's son Murugan. I state that immediately after receipt of the message from the finger print expert on 11-2-91 I searched for the petitioner's son. The petitioner's son Murugan is evading arrest and has been absconding. He has not been arrested till this day.'
3. The writ petition was filed before this Court on 19-2-1991. The counter-affidavit was filed on 27-2-1991. While issuing notice on 20-2-1991 this Court ordered.
'Notice to the respondent to show cause, if any, and to produce the petitioner's son, Murugan (Minor) in Court on 27-2-1991.'
The case was, however, listed on 20-3-1991 on which date the Court was informed that petitioner's son Murugan was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. The Court accordingly issued a direction to the Superintendent, Central Prison Madurai, to produce Murugan on 27-3-1991. Murugan, however, was produced by the petitioner herself on 27-3-1991 since it so happened that a petition for bail was moved on his behalf in the meanwhile and he was ordered to be released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai. It, however, transpired that Murugan purportedly surrendered in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, No. IV, Dindigul, who ordered for the custody of Murugan until he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai and accordingly, when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai, a petition for bail was moved before him and Murugan was released on bail. The Court ordered as follows :
'The juvenile concerned has been produced today by the petitioner herself as it is stated that he has since been ordered to be released on bail. He has made a statement in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties which has been recorded by Ms. S. Sujatha, Interpreter of this Court.'
'Call for records concerning Crime No. 51 of 1991 of Nagamalai Police Station from the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Dindigul and the Judicial Magistrate No. 7 Madurai and remand report of Judicial Custody of the juvenile concerned as well as reports from the Magistrate concerned as to why action has not been taken by them in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Learned Public Prosecutor in the meanwhile may obtain further instruction and inform the Court on the date fixed about any such Home or School where the petitioner's son (juvenile) can be lodged. Put up the report by 10-4-1991.'
The case has accordingly been listed today before us.
4. The English translation of Murugan's statement in Tamil recorded on 27-3-1991 by Ms. S. Sujatha, Interpreter. runs as follows :
'I am Murugan, aged 15, belong (sic) to Thuvariman village. On 8-2-1991 I was taken by the Pudukottai Police and was detained there. On the night of 8-2-1991 the Sub-Inspector of Pudukottai Police Station interrogated me with regard to a theft of jewels. During the interrogation they tortured me, removed my nails and applied chilly (sic-chilli) powder over the eyes and made me to consume Ganja, arrack and also motion (humanwaste) diluted in water. Later the Pudukottai Police left me with a counsel in Dindigul Court with instruction that I must give a statement that I was surrendering on my own. Since I was 15 I was denied remand. Then I was taken to a lodge where a certificate stating that I was 18, was taken from somebody there, for which certain amount was paid. Thereafter, I was put in Sub-Jail, Dindigul and later taken to Madurai Court. In Madurai Court I was remanded and lodged in the Central Jail, Madurai. Finally I was released on bail in the Madurai Court.'
5. The juvenile is present in Court. He looks younger than his age. No one has suggested that he could by any stretch of imagination be above the age of 18 years. Records of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai in Crime No. 51/91 of Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station reveal that the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul (Additional charge) ordered on 1-3-1991.
'Accused is produced before me at 7.00 p.m. Ordered to be produced before Judicial Magistrate VII at Madurai on or before 5-3-91.'
This order is recorded on a so called surrender petition signed by one advocate named B. J. S. Mahendra Singh in which it is stated,
'Surrender Petition
It is submitted that the above complainant has registered a case for the alleged offence u/Ss. 454 and 380, I.P.C.
The above minor accused, voluntarily surrenders before this Honourable Court. The petr/accused is aged about 18/19.
It is submitted that he should not be sent for police custody, without the knowledge of the above petitioner or his guardian or his counsel.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to accept his surrender and thus render justice.'
6. A perusal of the said petition, however, reveals that the words 'petitioner/accused is aged about 18/19' have been interpolated in the petition which originally was made to appear that a minor and had come to voluntarily surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV Dindigul. Murugan has stated before this Court that Pudukottai Police left him with a Counsel in Dindigul Court with instruction that he (Murugan) must give a statement that he was surrendering on his own. But since he was 15 years old he was denied remand. The order of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul dated 1-3-1991 as stated above is :
'Accused is produced before me at 7 p.m. Ordered to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate VIII at Madurai on or before 5-3-91.'
This clearly evidences that Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul was aware that a minor was produced and that he did not surrender. The Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai has, however, stated that Murugan had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul on 1-3-1991 in connection with Cri. No. 51/91 of Nagamalai Pudukotai Police Station, who remanded him to Sub-Jail, Dindigul with direction to produce Murugan before his Court on 5-3-1991. On 5-3-1991 at 4 p.m. Murugan was produced before him from Sub-Jail, Dindigul. The surrender application filed before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, with the order passed thereon and the memo of appearance of the Advocate were sent to him through the escort police and handed over to him at the time of production of Murugan. He has stated :
'In the surrender application as well as the remand warrant prepared in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Dindigul, the age of Murugan was noted as 18 years. There was nobody around either counsel or parents or relatives of Murugan at that point of time seeking his release or to make any representation. I extended the remand to Central Prison, Madurai till 19-3-91. As the Judicial Magistrate, No. IV Dindigul, in the first instance, was pleased to note the age of Murugan as 18 years in the remand warrant and remanded him to Sub-Jail, Dindigul, I have not chosen to take action in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, at that stage.'
7. There, however, is a printed form on the record with certain entries therein for remand of one Kuttaiyan @ Murugan son of Subbiah, aged 15/19, dated 1-3-1991, which states.
'WHEREAS Kuttaiyan @ Murugan S/o Subbiah has been forwarded in custody by the Officer in charge Nagamalai of Pudukottai Police Station to this Court charged by the Police with offences under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. the Court is empowered to take cognizance of the said offence ......'
There is a clear overwriting in this also in the entry relating to age of the person produced before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, on 1-3-91. In fact, the date '1-3-91' also has been scored through at one place and rewritten as 5-3-91 showing that was the date of production of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul.
8. The above is a sad tale of the treatment meted out to a juvenile by a police officer as well as two Judicial Magistrate, (1) Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul and (2) Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai. The objects of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, we know, are yet to be fully realised. Yet, we cannot understand how so blatantly all concerned can ignore the commands of Legislature and deal with a juvenile in a callous manner. Even an adult accused could not have been dealt with in the manner the respondent dealt with Murugan. Some doubts which existed in our mind about Murugan having been detained as alleged by the petitioner have been fully removed by the circumstances emerging from the facts revealed from the records that after filing of the present petition by the petitioner attempts started to somehow obtain an order of remand from a competent Court of law showing that Murugan voluntarily surrendered and when he surrendered, the Court of law ordered for his Judicial Custody. Murugan's statement before this Court is corroborated by the circumstances that a certain counsel prepared a surrender petition describing Murugan as a minor but when the Court did not accept his surrender and only ordered for his production before the Competent Court, that is to say, Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai, interpolation was made in the so called surrender petition as well as in the custody warrant. Even then no case of a voluntary surrender could be made out as in the custody warrant it could not be shown that Murugan had surrendered. The custody warrant contains a clear and unambiguous statement that he had been 'produced' in custody before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, by the Officer-in-Charge of Nagamalai-Pudukottai Police Station. These circumstances lend support to the statement of Murugan that he was detained at the police station at Pudukottai on and from 8-2-1991 and that he was tortured by removal of his nails, application of chilli powder over his eyes and was forced to consume ganja, arrack and human-waste diluted in water. How ineffective justice system proved in dealing with the case of Murugan is revealed by the change of stands by the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, who received a so called surrender petition signed by an advocate and ordered, as indicated above, to produce him before the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai but later yielded to the manipulations of the police by accepting the interpolation in the same very surrender petition and also, as if Murugan was aged about 18 years or more, and signed a custody warrant saying that Murugan had been produced in custody by the police. The Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai, has ventured to report to this Court that the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, had remanded Murugan to Sub-Jail, Dindigul with a direction to produce him before his Court and that on 5-3-1991 Murugan was produced before him from the Sub-Jail. Dindigul and,
'Even the surrender application with the order passed thereon and the memo of appearance of the advocate were sent to me through the escort police and handed over to me at the time of producing the said Murugan. In the surrender application as well as the remand warrant prepared in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Dindigul, the age of Murugan was noted as 18 years. There was nobody around either counsel or parents or relatives of Murugan at that point of time seeking his release or to make any representation.'
As he so stated in his report, could he not see the interpolation which we see with our naked eyes Was he not expected to hesitate before accepting such a manipulation that Murugan was a major who had voluntarily surrendered and been remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul (assuming that Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, had remanded Murugan to Judicial Custody). Was it not incumbent upon him to act as commanded by the Juvenile Justice Act
9. Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, states, -
'(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a juvenile Court, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.'
'(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept in an Observation Home or a place of safety in the prescribed manner. (but not in a police station or jail) until he can be brought before a Juvenile Court.'
'(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Juvenile Court it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an Observation Home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.'
Section 19 of the said Act states, -
'19. Where a juvenile is arrested, the officer-in-charge of the police station to which the juvenile is brought, shall as soon as may be after the arrest, inform -
(a) the parent or guardian of the juvenile, if he can be found, of such arrest and direct him to be present at the Juvenile Court before which the Juvenile will appear; and
(b) the Probation Officer of such arrest in order to enable him to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family history of the juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Juvenile Court for making the inquiry.'
10. The above provisions together make it obligatory that any police officer arresting juvenile must first see whether his release on bail with or without surety is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and if no such fact is found, to release the Juvenile on bail with or without surety. In case any such reasonable ground, far believing that the release was likely to bring him into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, is found existing, the police officer is duty bound to produce the delinquent Juvenile before a Juvenile Court and Juvenile Court alone and until such production to keep him in an Observation Home or a place of safety but not in a police station or jail. Murugan was kept in police custody and never produced before the Juvenile Court - although there could be little doubt that he was a juvenile when arrested and produced before the Magistrate. Even if there was a case of a doubt as to Murugan being a juvenile it was necessary that when he was produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate took notice of the age and if his doubts persisted, held such inquiry as he deemed fit to find out whether Murugan was a juvenile and needed to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act or not.
11. Courts in India have taken notice of the purposes for which the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, has been enacted. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar : AIR1989Pat217 has said,
'There may be a case where either in the first information report itself the accused might have been described as below 16 years of age or during the trial his age has been determined or admitted to be below 16 years on the date of occurrence. In such cases no further enquiry in respect of his age is called for and this Court can extend the benefit of the Children Act/Juvenile Act, to such an accused. But, in other cases, on the materials on record it may not be possible for this Court to be satisfied even in a prima facie manner that accused may be a child on the date of commission of the offence. In such cases there is no question of directing of determination of the age of the accused concerned on the date of commission of the offence. However, if this Court is satisfied in a prima facie manner that on that date of the commission of the offence the accused may be a child, this Court may direct the competent authority to determine the age of accused on the relevant date in accordance with S. 32 of the Juvenile Act .....'
'Section 32 vests power in the Juvenile Court to make due enquiry in respect of the age of the accused on the date of the commission of the offence and for that purpose such Court has to take evidence as may be necessary and to record a finding whether the accused in question was a Juvenile. It need not be pointed out that it is not possible for this Court to determine the age of an accused on the date of the commission of the office because that has to be determined on the basis of the evidence to be adduced and other materials in support thereof being produced. This determination should not be based merely on written opinion of the doctors produced before this Court. Prosecution has right to cross-examine such medical or forensic experts who have given their opinion about the age of the accused in order to demonstrate that the accused was not a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence ..........'
'Once the legislature has enacted a law to extend special treatment in respect of trial and conviction to juveniles, the Courts should be jealous while administering such law so that the delinquent juvenile derive full benefit of the provisions of such Act but, at the same time, it is the duty of the Courts that the benefit of the provisions meant for juveniles are not derived by unscrupulous persons, who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for having committed heinous and serious offences, by getting themselves declared as children or juveniles on the basis of procured certificates.'
12. In the case before the Patna High Court a juvenile had been convicted in a regular trial before the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, came into force. The Court was considering whether in view of the provisions in the Juvenile Justice Act while deciding the appeal it was duty bound to allow the plea that a juvenile should be punished only in accordance with the provisions in the Juvenile Justice Act or not. The Court observed, : AIR1989Pat217 ,
'A juvenile has to be tried as provided in the Act, kept as provided therein, convicted and sentenced in no other manner but in the manner prescribed therein. The police and the court of the first instance, therefore, have to discharge a solemn duty of identifying the juvenile at the threshold of the proceeding, separate his case from the case of adult delinquents and proceed in accordance with the Act. Any departure shall render the proceeding questionable. The offence may go unpunished but the child shall suffer the consequences of the company of the hardened criminals. The Juvenile Justice Act is a solemn promise by the present to the future. Those who are charged with the statutory duty must not fail.'
13. The statements of law in the Patna High Court's Judgment in Krishna Bhavwan's case : AIR1989Pat217 with respect to the provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act are a reiteration of the Statements made by the Supreme Court of Indian the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India, : [1986]3SCR562 dealing with a case under the Children Act of a State, a forerunner of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Supreme Court has said (paras 10 and 11),
'If a child is a national asset, it is the duty of the State to look after the child with a view to ensure full development of its personality. That is why all the statutes dealing with children provide that a child shall not be kept in jail. Even apart from this statutory prescription, it is elementary that a jail is hardly a place where a child should be kept. There can be no doubt that incarceration in jail would have the effect of dwarfing the development of the child, exposing him to baneful influences, coarsening his conscience and alienating him from the society.'
'Really speaking, the trial of children must take place in the Juvenile Courts and not in the regular Criminal Courts. There are special provisions enacted in various statutes relating to children providing for trial by Juvenile Courts in accordance with a special procedure intended to safeguard the interest and welfare of children.'
14. Sounding the same caution in dealing with the case of a juvenile a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dilip Saha v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1978 Cal 529 : , observed, that this benefit has to be extended not only to a case of a child/juvenile at the time of commencement of the enquiry and has continued as such till the conclusion of the enquiry, but even to an accused who has ceased to be a child/juvenile during the pendency of the enquiry.
15. We do not propose to cite more authorities to support our view that a juvenile has to be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and thus we hold that in relation to the duty to act in the case of a juvenile in the manner prescribed under the Act we have no option but to act as commanded by the law. The respondent has committed the first violation by not releasing Murugan on bail with or without surety and if he had any reasonable ground for believing that his (Murugan's) release was likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, by not producing him before the Juvenile Court and until his production before the Juvenile Court, by not keeping him in an Observation Home or a place of safety but by keeping him in a police station. He also failed to act in accordance with law as he never informed the parent or guardian of the Juvenile directing him to be present at the Juvenile Court before which the Juvenile would appear. He also failed in carrying out the condition of law by not informing the Probation Officer of such arrest in order to enable him to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family history of the Juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Juvenile Court for making the inquiry.
16. The most serious violation, however, the respondent committed was the manipulation of the so-called surrender of Murugan before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul and a remand to Judicial custody in Dindigul sub-jail and again, a remand to Judicial Custody under the orders of the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai. Murugan has charged the respondent by alleging that he and other police men at his command interrogated him (Murugan) and in the course of the interrogation tortured him by removing his nails, applying chilli powder over his eyes and forcing him to consume ganja, arrack and human waste diluted in water. The respondent will be required to answer not his charge but also how the so-called surrender petition was prepared, and who made interpolations in the surrender petition. No accused was named in the first information report. Nothing has been shown to us to think that Murugan had any past criminal record. There is also nothing stated that Murugan was suspected to be involved in the offence of theft in the house of Venkatesan of Thuvariman Agraharam. The respondent has admitted that Murugan had been brought to the police station for interrogation. His case before this Court is that Murugan was sent away after interrogation and after obtaining his specimen finger prints. According to him, when on 11-2-1991 he was informed by the finger prints expert that two chance prints developed from the scene of crime tallied with the specimen finger prints of Murugan, he started searching for him. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Murugan was evading arrest and had been absconding until he surrendered voluntarily before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, a story which is obviously improbable, if there is any evidence on the record, that shows that there had been a clear interpolation in the so-called surrender petition. There is good material on the record to show that Murugan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul by the police. This, in our view, is enough to conclude that Murugan was taken in custody by the respondent on 8-2-1991 and kept in custody without any authority of law until he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul on 1-3-1991. His judicial custody after 1-3-1991 in Jail prison was also illegal and invalid for the reason of the command of the legislature in S. 18 of the Jevenile Justice Act, 1986, read with S. 21 thereof.
17. We are of the prima facie view that the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent contains materials which are contrary to the facts as found by us in the record of the case. In any case, there appears to be a serious attempt made at one stage by someone to mislead the Court of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, by interpolating in the so-called surrender petition words suggesting that Murugan was aged about 18 years. How and why the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, fell to the scheme of the respondent or any other police personnel is a matter of concern. It appears that it was on the basis of the said interpolation in the surrender petition that the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul ordered remand of Murugan to Judicial Custody. That order formed that basis of the order of remand to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai. That both the magistrates failed to notice the obvious that Murugan was a Juvenile is yet another matter of concern. Was it a case of the accused not brought bodily before the Court Was it a case of a remand order passed blindly without seeing the accused Magistrates who make orders of remand blindly will not only fail in one case but will cause failure of the justice system itself.
18. We do not propose, however, to make any order for action against the Judicial Magistrate concerned in the hope that Judicial Magistrates in the State in future shall exercise their Judicial discretion strictly in accordance with law and see the accused before making any order of remand to police custody and/or Judicial custody, lest a Juvenile like Murugan be remanded again to police custody or Judicial custody. They shall be acting in accordance with law as they have to act only in accordance with law by asking for the production of the accused before any remand order is made and in case the accused appeared to be a juvenile, to follow the procedure prescribed in the Juvenile Justice Act and in case any doubt is created as to the age of the accused, inquire as prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act to find out whether the accused is a Juvenile or not in future thus the Magistrates shall always record the age of the accused in the order of remand and say under which law the accused is being dealt with.
19. Coming to the case of Murugan, we have reasons to appreciate the response of the State Government that they have found out a Home for him. The petitioner, who was present in Court at the last hearing, had indicated that she would prefer if Murugan is kept in some Observation Home for Boys and allowed to be benefited by the Schemes of the State Government for Juvenile delinquents. When we observed accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed us that the state Government would make arrangements for Murugan to be kept in the Observation Home for Boys and Girls under Madurai Children's Aid Society, 164 Kamarajar Road, Madurai a Home which, we are informed, provides sufficient vocational and other educational facilities as well as facilities to rehabilitate such juvenile delinquents. Murugan can safely be sent to the said home where he can be kept until such time he is entitled to say under the law.
20. Murugan has suffered illegal detention at the hands of the respondent. He is entitled to be compensated for the same. Since the State Government have undertaken to keep him in the Observation Home for Boys and Girls at Madurai, and to impart vocational training to him, we hope after attaining majority he would properly rehabilitate himself. Any compensation that may be awarded to him, if utilised in his rehabilitation, would help him to show up as a proud citizen of India. Keeping this in view and the sufferings of Murugan, for which we have no reason to reject, we think that a compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) invested in some approved Scheme of the State Government in the name of Murugan for a period of five years to be made available to him with cumulative interest in the vocation in which he would be rehabilitated, will meet the ends of justice.
21. The above, however, shall only be meeting the injury caused to Murugan by the illegal detention and not in any manner the allegations against the respondent and his men that they tortured Murugan, removed his nails, applied chilli powder over his eyes and made him to consume ganja, arrack and human-waste diluted in water. This shall also not meet the circumstance how the interpolation was made in the surrender petition filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul and who manipulated the so-called surrender although Murugan was produced before the Magistrate in Police custody. This, in our view, shall require some disciplinary action against the respondent and any other person found involved in it as well as action by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul for interpolation in his records. We accordingly direct the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to issue necessary orders to the disciplinary authority to hold a preliminary inquiry and if such facts are revealed in the preliminary inquiry warranting disciplinary proceedings, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent or any other person involved in the matter, within a reasonable time so as to complete the preliminary inquiry within a period of one month and the disciplinary inquiry, if any, within period of three months thereafter.
22. We also direct the Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, to issue notice to the person who filed the surrender petition in Court purportedly on behalf of Murugan and proceed in accordance with S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to decide whether to file any complaint for the interpolation and use of the interpolated petition in his Court for action against Murugan. The Judicial Magistrate IV, Dindigul, is directed to conduct the inquiry as expeditiously as possible so as to conclude it within a period of two months.
23. Since we have noticed that more than one Magistrate fell to the scheme of the respondent and issued/passed orders of remand without verifying whether Murugan was a Juvenile or not, we feel it necessary to order that a direction be issued to the Magistrate, who receive production of any accused and/or surrender, to find out the age of the accused before making any order of remand and for that purpose, not to act upon the Statement of the police alone.
24. The State Government shall invest a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) is any one of the approved schemes within one month from to-day which shall be delivered to Murugan with accumulated interest after maturity and invested in his rehabilitation in the vocation in which he shall be trained in the Home.
25. Let Murugan be delivered to the Custody of the Observation Home for Boys and Girls under Madurai Children's Aid Society 164. Kamaraja Road, Madurai. The petitioner undertakes to deliver Murugan to the Observation Home within One Week from to-day. The petitioner has stated that Murugan is aged about 15 years. He appears, as we have already observed, less than that age. It will be necessary, therefore, to determine his correct age with the aid of such Medical examination that may be required. We direct the District Medical Officer, Madurai, to constitute a Board and get Murugan examined medically for determination of his age, so that such record is maintained in the Observation Home to produce Murugan before the District Medical Officer, Madurai whenever required.
26. The Observation Home shall report to the Juvenile Court of Madurai District or the Court acting in lieu of the Juvenile Court at Madurai. The Juvenile Court concerned shall determine such conditions as may be found necessary for the stay of Murugan in the Observation Home concerned.
27. Let the records received from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai be remitted to the Sessions Judge, Dindigul (Quaid-E. Milleth District) in a sealed cover, who shall not allow the records to be handled by any person except the Presiding Officer of the Court holding the inquiry u/S. 340, Criminal Procedure Code.
28. The reports of the inquiries as ordered above must be submitted to this court after completion.
29. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. This order shall not affect the investigation of Crime No. 51 of 1991 on the file of Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station.
30. Order accordingly.