Holding

Juveniles under 16 cannot be detained in a regular jail; they must be placed in a "place of safety" and the court must investigate the serious allegations rather than dismiss the writ petitions summarily.

Summary

Three writ petitions under Article 32 were filed after a newspaper report alleged that juvenile under‑trial prisoners under 16 years were being kept in Kanpur Central Jail and sexually exploited by adult inmates, despite the existence of a Children’s Home. The Allahabad High Court ordered a Sessions Judge to investigate, who reported that seven juveniles were in the jail, six of whom had been released before the High Court’s order and one was later transferred to the Children’s Home. The Supreme Court held that the allegations were serious and could not be dismissed merely because the jail official denied the journalist’s visit; the court must ensure that juveniles are not sent to jail but detained in a "place of safety" as mandated by the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951. It directed that the journalist be impleaded as a respondent, that the State provide affidavits regarding the release of the children and the delay in transferring one child, and that the legal aid board obtain statements from the six released juveniles. The Court emphasized the protective purpose of the Children’s Act and adjourned the matter for further compliance.

Issues considered

The allegations of juvenile under‑trial prisoners being kept in a regular jail and sexually exploited.
Whether the Supreme Court can dismiss the writ petitions on the basis of the jail official's denial of the journalist's visit.
Whether juveniles under 16 can be detained in a regular prison under the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951.
What procedural steps are required to investigate and remedy the alleged violations.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951s. 23, s. 24, s. 25, s. 27, s. 2(9), s. 29, s. 30, s. 32, s. 33
Uttar Pradesh Children Rules, 1962s. Rule 14, s. Rule 15

Subjects

juvenile justiceunder‑trial prisonerschild detentionplace of safetyUttar Pradesh Children ActArticle 32sexual exploitationprison reformhuman rights

Judgment

47
MtJNNA & OTHERS ETC. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ETC.

January 19, 1982
B
[P.N. BHAOWATI AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.]

Constitution of India 1950, Article 32-Juvenile undertriaJ priso~rs-111-
treatmtnt ana exploitation in jail-Newspaper report-Writ petition filed seeking
relief-A/legations denied by jailor-Al/egations h"eld seTious-Writ petition cannot
be summarily dismissed.
Crime and Punishment-Juvenile delinquency-Inhibition against sending
c
children to jail-Person under sixteen years of agt-Not to he sent to Jail-
·Detention in Children's Home or 'Place of safe'-Necessity of-Duty of
Magistrates.
Uttar Pradesh Childrtn Act 1951, ss. 2(9), 29, 30, 32 and 33 & Uttar Pradesh
Children's Rules 1962, Ru/ts U and 15. Child-Arrtsted for offenct-Not rtleastd
on bail-Cannot be sent to jail-Detention in 'place of safety' or Children's Homt- D
Statutory requirement-Government to implement provisions of A.ct-Setting up
plaCes for detention for chiJdren-Necessity of.

Three writ petitions wCre filed alleging on tbe basis of a news report in the
Indian Express dated 2nd December, 1981 that one Mr. Madhu Mehta had visited
the Kanpur Central Jail incognito and found several juvenile undertrial priso~rs
lodged there even though there was a Cbildten's Home in Kanpur, and that E
these juvenile prisoners were being sexually exploited by adult prisoners.
Notice was issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh.

In the meanwhile a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Allahabad
seeking relief in respect of these juvenile undertrial prisoners. The High Court
decided to investigate and by its order dated 18th December, 1981 directed the
Sessions Judge of Kanpur to visit the Jail and to report whether any dctcou below F
the age of 16 years was detaiOed, whether any detenu below the age of 21 years
was being kept under fetters, and whether they were subjected to torture by adult
prisoners as alleged in the writ petition. The Sessions Judge visited the Jail on 21st
December, 1981 and submitted his report dated 22nd December, 1981 to the High
Court. The report stated that there were admittedly seven juvenile undertrial
prisoners below the age of sixteen in the jail and that one Des Raj was transferred
to the Children's Home on 19th December, 1981 and that the rest of the prisoners G
happened to be released on different dates between 7th and 16th December, 1981
before the order of the High Court on 18th December, 1981. .The Sessions Judge
in Annexure •A' to his report ·gave the names, ages and other particulars of 84
undertriaJ prisoners who according to the jail report were above 16 but below 21
years of age and stated that he had nine from among these undertrial prisoners
examined by the Chief Medical Officer and appended the report as Annexure 'B'. H
He fUrther reported about the general ignorance of the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Children's Act, l~SI and stated that he bad instructed the Jail Superin-
48 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1982] 3 s.c.e.

A tendent and the Jail Doctor that in case of any doubt about the age of an under..
trial pr)soner they should instead of relying upon the Police papers with regard to
age, obtain the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer.

In the writ petitions, it was

HELO : 1. The allegations made in the writ petition are serious. lf correct
they disclose to what utter depth of depravity man can sink. The Court cannot
B abdicate its c_onstitutional duty of ensuring human dignity to the juvenile under.
trial prisoners and summarily throw out the writ petitions me'rcly on the basis of a
denial made by the Assistant Jailer. Tho instant case must be investigated not
only in the interest of fair administration of justice but 3.lso for enforcing the
basic human rights of undertrial prisoners who are alleged to have been ill-
treated. [53 D-E]
c 2. Juvenile delinquency is, by and large, a product of social and economic
mal-adjustment. Even if it is found that juveniles have committed any offence
they cannot be allowed to be mal-treated. They do not shed their fundamental
rights when they enter the jail. [53 E·F] i

3. The object of punishment being reformation, no social objective ca.n be
gained by sending juveniles to jails where they would come into contact with
D hardened criminals and lose whatever sensitivity they may have to finer and nobler
sentiments, That is the reason why Children Acts are enacted by States all over
the country and the Uttar Pradesh Legislature has also enacted the Uttar Pradesh
Children Act 1951. [53 F-G]

4. The inhibition against sending a child to jaif does not depend upon any -
proof that he is a child under the age of 16 years but as soon as it appears that a
E person arrested is apparently under the age of 16 yc-ars this inhibition is
attracted. The reason for this inhibition lies in the solicitude which the Jaw
entertains for juveniles below the age of 16 years. [55 H, 56 A]

5. The law is very much concerned to see that juveniles do not come into
contact with hardened criminals and that chances of reformation are not blighted
by contact with criminal offenders. The law throws a cloak of protection round
·juveniles and seeks to isolate them from criminal offenders, because the emphasis
F placed by the Jaw is not on incarceration but on reformation~ [56 B]

6. When a child is arrested for an offence and is not released on bail, he
cannot be sent to jail but he must be detained in a 'place of safety' as defined in
section 2 sub~section (9) of the Act. The manner in which a child can be detained r
is prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Children's Rules, 1962. Rule 14 provides that
except as provided in the Act, where a child having been arrested is not released
G on bail under section 23, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall cause
him to be detained in a 'place of safety' until he can be brought before a court,
and Rule 15 says that except as provided in the Act where a child is not released
on bail, the court shall on remanding or committing a child for trial order him to
be detained in a 'place of safety' pending the disposal of the proceedings.
[55 G-H, 55 D·F]
H
7. How anxious is the. law to protect young children from contamination
with hardened criminals· is apparent from section 27 of the Act which provides
i.iUNNA V. U.P. STATB
, 49
subject only to a few limited and exceptional cases referred to in the proviso, that A
.
notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, no court / can sentence a
child to death or transportation or imprisonment for any term-or commit him to
prison in default of payment of ftno. Even where a child is convicted of an
offence, he is not to be sent to a prison but ho may be committed_ to an approved
school under section 29 or _be either discharged or committed to suitable custody
under section 30. Even where a child is found to have committed an offence of
so serious a nature that that court is of opinion that no punishment which under B
the provisions of the Act it is authorised to inflict, is sufficient section 32 provides
that tho offender shall not be sent to jail but shall be kept in safe custody- in such
place or manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for tke order of the State
Government. Section 33 sets ·out various methods Of dealing with children
charged with offences. But in no case except the exceptional ones mentioned in
the Act, a child can be sent to jail.

8(i) It is impressed upon tho magistrates in the State of Uttar Pradesh
c.
and also in the other ·parts of tho country that whore !the Children Acts
i are in force they must be extremely careful to see that no person apparently
under the age of 16 years is sent to jail but he must be detained in a
Children's Home or other 'place of safety'. (ii) It is absolutely essential in order
to implement the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 that
Children's Home or other suitable places of safety afe set up by the Government
for the purpose of providing a place of detention for children under the age of
D
16 years. [56 C·H, '7 A)

The Court also gave the followin11 directions :

(I) Since the Assistant Jailor has denied the visit of Shri Madhu Mehta, it
is necessary that Shri Madhu Mehta should be impleaded as a party respondent E
to th~, writ petitions so that he can state arr oath whether he visited the Jail, and if
so what were the facts which he observed. [53 B-CJ ·

(2) The Superintendent of the Jail to inform by a proper affidavit as to what
were the circumstances in which the six: children whose names are given at serial
numbers 2 to 7 in Annexure 'B' were released and also produce the orders of the
Magistrate directing their.release. He is also to inform wJly Des Raj was detained
in tho Jail from. 7th March, 1981 though he was admittedly even on the basis of F
the jail records a child below 16 years of age and how it happened that suddenly
on 19th December; 1981 an order wa-s· obtained for transferring bi(ll to the
Children's Home. The State of Uttar Pritdesh and the Superiniendent of the Jail
will explain why an order for transfer of Des Raj to the Children's Home could
not be obtained earlier. [54 C-E)

(3) The Registrar of the High Court to forward immediately copies of all G
Annexures to the Report of the Sessions Judge. [54 F)

(4) According to tho report of the Sessions Judge there were seven juvenile
undertrial prisoners below the age of 16 years. Out of these six were released
prior to· the_ visit of the Sessions Judge, and they could not, therefore, be
interviewed. Shri O.P. Garg, Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh State Board of Legal H
Aid and Advice to immediately contact these six children after finding out their
addresse{ either from the court proceedings or from .the jail records and take
50 StJPRllMB CotJlT lBPOllTS [ 1982) 3 s.c.a.
A *heir statements with a view to ascertain w1lat was the treatment mented Out to
them in the jail and whether any of them was mal-treated. The report to be
submitted on or before 27th January, 1982. [53 G·H, 54 A-BJ

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I Writ Petition Nos. 9133, 8974 of
1981 & 6 of 1982.
B
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Krishan Mahajan for the Petitioner in WP. 6/82. j
,

Miss Lily Thomas for the Petitioner in WP. 8974/81.

c Mrs. K. Hingorani for the Petitioner in WP. 9133/81.

R.K. Bhatt for Respondent in all WPs.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

D BHAGWATI, J. These three writ petitions come before us on
notice to the State of U ttar Pradesh. They seek relief in respect of
certain juvenile undertrial prisoners in the Kanpur Central Jail. The
allegations in respect of these juvenile undertrial prisoners are that
though there is a Children's Home in Kanpur, these juvenile under-
trial prisoners who arc, according to the allegations in the writ
petitioners, more than JOO in number are lodged in the Kanpur
Central Jail instead of being sent to the Children's Home and they
are being sexually exploited by the adult prisoners. These allega-
tions are based on a news report published in the issue of the Indian
Express dated 2nd December, 1981 where a reference is made to a
visit of Shri Madhu Mehta of the Hindustani Andolan to the Kanpur
F
Central Jail incognito. Shri Madhu Mehta, according to this news
report, found that "young boys of JO to 14 years" were being
"supplied to convicts for their delectation" and a boy named Munna
whom he met, was in agony because "after the way he was used,
he was unable to sit." When these three writ petitions based on the
G news report came up for admission, it was not possible to state
whether these allegation' contained in the news report were correct
or not. But if they were correct, they disclosed an extremely distres- ;
I
sing state of affairs and they were sufficient to shock the conscience of
the court. The Court, therefore, issued notice to the State of Uttar
H Pradesh in each of these three writ petitions. But, it appears that, in
the, meanwhile, a writ petition bearing number 14645 of 1981 was
also filed in the High Court of Allahabad by an organisation called
MUNNA '· U.P. STATB (Bhagwatl, 1.) 51

Human Rights Organisation seeking relief in respect of these juvenile A
undertrial prisoners and on this writ petition, the High Court of
Allahabad rightly activated itself and decided to investigate into the
matter and with that end in view, made an order dated 18th
December, 1981 requesting the senior most Sessions Judge of Kanpur
to visit the Kanpur Central Jail and to make a report on the follow-
ing points: -B
1. Whether there is any detenu below the age of 16 years
who is being detained in the Dist!. Jail, Kanpur ? if so,
the names of such detenus and the offences in connec-
tion with which they are being detained be indicated.

2. Whether any detenu below the age of 21 years is being
c
kept under fetters or was being kept under fetters ?
••
3. Whether any such person is being subjected to torture
of the nature mentioned in the petition ?
4. Whether such inmates of the prison are being provided D
with proper medical facilities ?

The Sessions Judge accordingly visited the Kanpur Central Jail on
21st December, 1981 and submitted his Report dated 22nd Decem-
ber, 1981 to the High Court of Allahabad. We do not propose to E
consider this Report in detail at this stage, but suffice it to state that
according to this Report, there were admittedly seven juvenile under-
trial prisoners below the age of 16 in the Kanpur Central Jail, but,
curiously enough, barring one Deshraj who was transferred to the
Children's Home Kanpur on 19th December, 1981, all the rest
happened to be released on different dates between 7th and 16th F
December, 1981, before the order made by the Allahabad High
Court on 18th December, 1981. It is rather interesting to note that
the news report in the issue of the Indian Express was published on
2nd December, 1981 and writ. petition No. 8974/81 · which is the first
of these three writ petitions was filed by Miss Lily Thomas on 3rd
December, 1981 and these juvenile underttial prisoners were released G
within a few days of the publication of the news report and the filing
of the writ petition. Even so far as Deshraj is concerned, though
he was admitted in the Kanpur Central Jail on 7th March, 198.1 he
was not transferred to the Children's Home Kanpur until 19th
December, 1981 after the order was made by the Allahabad High H
Court. The consequence of release of these undertrial juvenile
prisoners, except Deshraj, was that the Sessions Judge could not
52 sUPRl!MB COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.f!..

A interview any of them when he visited the Kanpur Central Jail on
21st December, 1981. The Sessions Judge gave in Annexure A to
his Report the names, ages and other particulars of 84 undertrial
prisoners who, according to the jail record, were above 16 but
below 21 years of age and added that the possibility could not be
ruled out that on proper scientific medical examination, three or
B four out of these 84 undertrial prisoners might be found to be below
16 years ofage. The Sessions Judge picked out nine from amongst
,.
these undertrial prisoners and got them examined by the Chief
Medical Officer and enclosed the Report of the Chief Medical
Officer as Annexure B to his Report. The Sessions Judge also
reported that there appeared to be general ignorance in the Kanpur
c Central Jail about the provisions of the U.P. Children Act, 1951 and
observed:

"All the child accused mentioned in · Annexure B
should have been produced before the Juvenile Judge after
D their arrest. Where there was doubt "hether the detenu
was above the age of 16 or below it, he should have been
sent for medical report in connection with his age and on
being found to be a child, should have been dealt in accor-
dance with the Children Act."

E The Sessions Judge instructed the Jail Superintendent and the jail
doctor that in case there was any doubt about the age of an under-
trial prisoner, they should instead of relying upon the police papers
with regard to age, obtain the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer
and "apprise the court concerned of it so that the presiding officer
directs the accused to be produced before the Juvenile Judge to
F enable him to take the benefit of the provisions of the Children Act
for a better social order." We do not know what order has been
passed by the Allahabad High Court in the writ petition before it
but when these three writ petitions came up for hearing before us
on 5th January, \982, the Report of the Sessions J~dge was placed
before us and an affidavit in reply was also filed by the Assistant
G Jailer of the Kanpur Central Jail denying the allegations made in
the news report.

Now in the first place, since these three writ petitions are
based upon certain statements said to have been made by Shri 'J
H Madhu Mehta and set out in the news report of the Indian Express;
we think it would be desirable to join Shri Madhu Mehta as a party
MUNNA v. u.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 53

respondent in each of the three writ petitions, so that he can place A
before the court all the facts gathered by him in regard to the
juvenile inlnates of the Kanpur Central Jail. The Assistant Jailer
has in bis affidavit in reply disputed that Shri Madhu Mehta ever
visited the jail, but since, according to the news report, Sbri Madbu
Mehta entered the jail incognito, it is quite possible that the Assis-
tant Jailer may not have any record of his visit. But, since the
B
Assistant Jailer bas denie.d the visit of Shri Madbu Mehta, we think
it necessary that Shri Madhu Mehta should be impleaded as a party
respondent to the writ petitions so that he can state on oath whether
he visited the Kanpur Central Jail and if so, what were the fact
which he observed. We cannot reject in limine the allegations made
in the news report in regard to what Shri Madho Mehta found in the
c
course of his visit to the Kanpur Central Jail, merely because the
Assist3nt Jailer bas disputed the visit of Sbri Madhu Mehta. The
allegations are indeed so serious and, if correct, disclose to what
utter depths of depravity man can sink, that the court cannot
abdicate its constitutional duty of tnsuring huma'n dignity to the D
juvenile undertrial prisoners and summarily throw out the three
writ petitions merely on the basis of a denial made by the Assistant
Jailer. We must investigate into this matter not only in the interest
of fair administration of justice but also for enforcing the basic
human rights of these unfortunate juvenile undertrial prisoners who
are alleged t~ have been.the victims of sexual exploitation. Juvenile E
delinquency is, by and large, a product of social and economic mal-
adi\lstment. Even if it is found that these juveniles have committed
any offences, they cannot be allowed to be mal-treated. They do
not shed their fundamental rights when they enter the jail. More-
over, the object of punishment being reformation, we fail to see what
· social objective can be gained by sending juveniles to jails where they F
would come into contact with hardened criminals and lose whatever
sensitivity they may have to finer and nobler sentiments. That is the
,reason why Children Acts are enacted by States all over the country
and the U.P. Legislature bas also enacted the Uttar Pradesh Children
Act, 1951. Since, according. to the Report of the Sessions Judge,
there were 7 juvenile undertrial prisoper below the age of 16 years,
that being the limit of age below which a juvenile would be regard-
G
ed as a 'child' within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Children
Act, 1951, and out of these seven child undertrial prisoners, six were
released prior to the visit of the Session Judge and they could not
therefore be interviewed by the Sessions Judge, we would direct Shri H
Q.P, Gar~, Secretary of the T,J.p. ~tate !}oar<). of Le~al Aid ang
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 S.C.R.

A Advice, to immediately contact these six children after finding out
their addresses either from the court proceedings or from the jail
records and take their statements with a view to ascertaining what
was the treatment meted out to them in the K·anpur Central Jail and
whether any cf them was mal-treated or sexually exploited. Shri
O.P. Garg will immediately without any delay, proceed to take the
B statements of these six children and submit them to this Court along
with bis report on or before 27th January, 1982. His expenses may
be met by the U.P. State Board of Legal Aid and Advice.

We should also like the State of Uttar Pradesh and the
c Superintendent of the Kanpur Central Jail to inform us by a proper
affidavit before the next hearing of the writ petitions as to what were
the circumstances in which these six children whose names are given
at serial numbers 2 to 7 in Annexure B were released, and also
produce before us the orders of the Magistrates directing their release.
We should also like the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Superinten-
D dent of the Kanpur Central Jail to inform us as to why Deshraj was
detained in the Kanpur Central Jail from 7th March, 1981 though
he was admittedly, even on the basis of the jail records, a child below
16 years of age and how did it happen that suddenly on 19th
December, 1981, an order was obtained for transferring him to the
Children's Home, Kanpur. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the
E Superintendent of the Kanpur Central Jail will also explain as to
why such an order for transfer of Desbraj to the Children's Home
Kanpur could not be obtained earlier.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar
F Pradesh handed over to us copies of Annexures A and B, but we
do not have copies of the other annexures to the Report of the
Sessions Judge. We would therefore request the Registrar of the
. -.r
High Court of Allahabad to forward to us immediately copies of all
the annexures to the Report of the Sessions Judge. The copies may
be in qua·d~uplicate.
G
Since, according to the Report of the Sessions Judge, 7
children were lodged in the Kanpur Central Jail and perhaps a few
more out of the 84 undertrial prisoners mentioned in Annexure A
to the Report of the Sessions Judge could possibly .he children
H within the meaning of Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951, we think
it is necessary to point out that under the provisions ·of that Act, no
~hild can, except in the r11re cases provided in the Act, be detained
MUNNA v. U.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 5S

in jail. Chapter IV of the Act deah with youthful offenders. A
Section 23 which occurs in this chapter provides in sub-section (I)
that when a person apparently under the age of 16 years is arrested
for a non·bailable offence and cannot be brought forth before a
court, the oflicer·in-charge of the police station to which such
person is brought may in any case and shall unless the offence is
one of culpable homicide or-is an offence punishable with death or B
transportation release him on bail unless for reasons to be recorded
In_ writing the officer believes that such release will bring him into
association with any reputed criminal or expose him to moral danger

,_.
--
or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Section 24
1 then proceeds to enact that when a person apparently under the
age of 16 years having been arrested is not released under section 23 c
or otherwise, the officer-in-charge of the police station, shall cause
hini to be detained in the prescribed manner until he can he brought
before a court. So also section 25 provides that a court, on remand·
ing or committing for trial a child who is not released on bail, shall
order him to be detained in the prescribed manner. The manner
in which a child can be detained is prescribed by the Uttar Pradesh D
Children Rules, I 962 made in exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (I) of section 88 of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act,
1951. Rules 14 and 15 are the relevant rules which make provision
in this behalf. Rule I 4 provides that except as provided in the
Act, where a child having been arrested is not released on bail under
section 23, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall cause him E
to be detained ic a place of safety until he can he brought before a
court and rule I 5 says that except as provided in the Act, where a
child is not released on bail, the court shall on remanding or com-
mitting a child for trial order him to be detained in a place of safety
pending the disposal of the proceeding. What is a "place of safety"
is defined in section 2, sub-section (9) of the Act to mean, "any F
observation home or any orphanage, hospital, or any other ;suitable
place or institution, the occupier or manager of which is williug
temporarily to receive a child, or where such observation home,
orphanage, hospital or other suitable place of institution is not
available in the case of a male child only, a police station in which_
arrangements are available or can be made for the safe keeping of a G
child separately from adult offenders." It is therefore clear that
when a child is arrested for an offence and is not released on bail,
• be cannot be sent to jail but be must be detained in a place of safety
as defined in section 2 sub-section (9) of the Act. The inhibition
1111ainst sending a ~!!!Id to jail docs not depend upon any proof that H
56 SUPRE MB COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.R.
A
he is a child under the age of 16 years hut as soon as it appears that
a person arrested is apparently _under the age of 16 years this
inhibition is attracted. The reaaon for this inhibition lies in the
court solitude which the]law entertains for· juveniles below the age
of 16 years. The law ii very much ~oncerned to see that juvenile
do not come into contact with hardened criminals and their chances
B of reformation are not blighted by contact with criminal offenders.
The law throws a clock of protection round juveniles and seeks to
isolate them from criminal offenders, because the emphasis placed
by the law is not on incarceration but on reformation. How
anxious is the law to protect young children from contamination
with hardened criminals is also apparent from section 27 of the Act
c which provides, subject only to a few limited and exceptional cases
referred to in the proviso, that notwithstanding anything contained
to the contrary, no court can sentence a child to death or transpor-
tation or imprisonment for any term or commit him to prison in
default of payment of fine. It would thus be seen that even where
a child is convicted of an offence, he it not to be sent to a prison
D but he may be committed to an approved school under section 29 or
either discharged or committed to suitable custody under section 30.
Even where a child is found to have committed an offence of so
serious a nature that the court is of opinion that no punishment
which under the provisions of the Act it is authorised to inflict is
sufficient, section 32 provides that the offender shall not be sent to
E jail but shall be kept in safe custody in such place or manner as it
thinks fit and shall report the case for the orders of the State
Government. Section 33, sets out various methods of dealing with
. '
children charged with offences. But in no case except the exceptional
ones mentioned in the Act, a child can be sent to jail. It is there-
fore very surprising that the seven children whose names are
F mentioned in Annexure B to the Report of the Sessions Judge were
sent by the concerned Magistrate to jail instead of being sent to
Children's Home which we believe was a place of safety in Kanpur
within the meaning of section 2 sub-section (9) of the Act. We
would strongly impress upon the magistrates in the State of Uttar
Pradesh-and what we say here must apply mutatis mutandis to the
G
magistrates in the other parts of the country where the Children
Acts are in force, that they must be extremely careful to see that no
person apparently under the age of 16 years is sent to jail but he
must be detained in a Children's Home or other place of safety. It
H is absolutely essential in order to implement the provisions of the
Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 that children's Home or other
MUNNA v. u.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 57

suitable places of safety are set up by the government for the purpose A
of providing a place of detention for children under the age of 16
years. No words we can use would be strong enough to convey our
feelings in this respect. A nation which is not concerned with the
welfare of its children cannot look forward to a bright future.

With these observations, we adjourn the hearing of these three B
writ petitions' to 29th January, 1982.

i
N.V.K.

c