' These two Criminal Revision Applications Numbers Criminal Revision 113/81 and Criminal Revision 114/81 have been filed under sections 435/439, 561(A), Cr.P.C. To challenge the convictions of the applicant in two separate cases under Bombay Children Act, 1924. The applicant was challaned under section 302, P.P.C. And 13-D, Arms Ordinance and he has been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentence to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance to suffer R.I. For one year by Sessions Judge, Dadu in separate judgments dated 22nd October, 1981.
2. In these revisions one legal point is involved therefore I propose to dispose of both the revisions by a single order.
3. The relevant facts are that on 8th October, 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 convicted the applicant in two accounts in separate judgments as stated above. The learned Judge in his judgment has mentioned that at the time of incident applicant was a child. He proceeded with the case under the provisions of Bombay Children Act, 1924 and convicted him under section 27(h) of the above Act.
4. Mr. Akhtar Ali G.Kazi, Advocate for the applicant has challenged the proceedings and contended that at the time of trial the Bombay Children Act, was not the law of land as it was repealed by notification dated 21st November, 1974. He has submitted that applicant should have been tried under Sind Children Act, 1955. He further argued that under section 68 of Sind Children Act, no youthful offenders shall be sentenced to death or transportation of life or imprisonment. He has also cited the cases 1980 P Cr. L J 550, wherein it has been held that youthful offender for the purposes of Bombay Children Act, 1924 cannot be sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment for life and according to him the same provision has been repeated in Sind Children Act of 1955. He has also referred to a case Bacho alias Abdul Jabbar v. The State 1981 P Cr. L J 299, wherein it was held that accused at the time of initiating of proceedings was 16 years of age and was sentenced to imprisonment of life but Hon'ble Judges of this High Court referred that case to the Provincial Government for taking appropriate action as provided under section 68(2) of the Sind Children Act.
5. Mr. Jalaluddin, Advocate for the State has frankly conceded that trial is illegal.
6. In the present case charge against the applicant was framed on 5th April, 1978 and judgment was announced on 22nd October, 1981 on both the above dates Bombay Children Act of 1924, was already repealed but the learned trial Judge proceeded with the case under that Act and convicted him. Under section 110(d) of the Sind Children Act which read as under:- "Where it is provided that all proceedings pending before the Court under the repealed Act be disposed of by the Court notwithstanding anything in this Act as if they were cases, proceedings and appeals under this Act."
7. So in my view the cases should have proceeded under the Sind Children Act, 1955. The convictions under Bombay Children Act are therefore illegal. I set aside the convictions passed in the above Sessions Cases. The cases are remanded back to the Court of Sessions with directions to proceed with the cases under the Sind Children Act, 1955, and decide on merits as early as possible.