2000 Supreme(SC) 1018

2000(4) Supreme 186
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Arnit Das -Appellant
versus
State of Bihar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 729 of 2000)
Decided on 9-5-2000

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is the date on which the person is brought before the competent authority by reference to which the age of the person is required to be determined so as to find whether he is a juvenile or not and the date of Commission of the offence is immaterial.2. A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub-silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined.

Headnote:(i) Juvenile Justice Act, 1986-Section 32 r/w Section 3-Determination as to whether a person is a juvenile or not-Material date for determination of-Crucial date for determining question whether a person is juvenile is the date when he is brought before the competent authority-Date of offence is not material.

       Neither the definition of juvenile nor any other provision contained in the Act specifically provides the date by reference to which the age of a boy or a girl has to be determined so as to find out whether he or she is a juvenile or not. The scheme of the Act contemplates its applicability coming into play only when the person may appear or be brought before the competent authority. Under Section 8, when any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board or Juvenile Court under this Act is of opinion that the person brought before him under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise then for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile, he shall record such opinion and forward the juvenile and the record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding. The competent authority to which the proceeding is so forwarded shall hold the enquiry as if the juvenile had originally been brought before it. Under Section 18, 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, or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety unless there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. In the latter case, the person has to be kept in an observation home or a place of safety until he can be brought before a Juvenile Court. The Juvenile Court if not releasing the person on bail must not commit him to prison but send him to an observation home or a place of safety during the pendency of the enquiry before him. Under Section 20, where a juvenile charged with an offence appears or is produced before a Juvenile Court, the Juvenile Court shall hold an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Section 39. A reading of all these provisions referred to herein above makes it very clear that an enquiry as to the age of the juvenile has to be made only when he is brought or appears before the competent authority. A Police Officer or a Magistrate who is not empowered to act or cannot act as a competent authority has to merely form an opinion guided by the apparent age of the person and in the event of forming an opinion that he is a juvenile, he has to forward him to the competent authority at the earliest subject to arrangements for keeping in custody and safety of the person having been made for the duration of time elapsing in between. The competent authority shall proceed to hold enquiry as to the age of that person of determining the same by reference to the date of the appearance of the person before it or by reference to the date when person was brought before it under any of the provisions of the Act. It is irrelevant what was the age of the person on the date of commission of the offence. Any other interpretation would not fit in the scheme and phraseology employed by the Parliament in drafting the Act. (Paras 7, 11 & 12)

       The use of the word is at two places in sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act read in conjunction with a person brought before it also suggests that the competent authority is required to record the finding by reference to an event in present before it, i.e. by reference to the date when the person is brought before it and not by reference to a remote event i.e. the date on which the offence was committed. (Para 13)

       The Juvenile Justice Act provides for justice after the onset of delinquency. The societal factors leading to birth of delinquency and the preventive measures which would check juvenile delinquency legitimately fall within the scope of social justice. Once a boy or a girl has assumed delinquency, his or her treatment and trial at the hands of justice delivery system is taken care of by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The view so taken finds support from the preamble to the Act and the statement of objects and reasons. The preamble speaks for the Act making provisions for the things post-delinquency. Several expressions employed in the statement of objects and reasons vocally support this view. The Act aims at laying down a uniform juvenile justice system in the country avoiding lodging in jail or police lock-up of child; and providing for prevention and treatment or juvenile delinquency, for care, protection, etc. post-juvenility. In short the field sought to be covered by the Act is not the one which had led to juvenile delinquency but the field when juvenile having committed a delinquency is placed for being taken care of post-delinquency. The procedure prescribed by the provisions of the Act has to be adopted only when the competent authority finds the person brought before it or appearing before it is found to be under 16 years of age if a boy and under 18 years of age if a girl on the date of being so brought or such appearance first before the competent authority. The date of the commission of offence is irrelevant for finding out whether the person is a juvenile within the meaning of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act. If that would have been the intendment of the Parliament, nothing had prevented it from saying so specifically. Section 3 of the Act also provides a clue to the legislative intent. It provides for an enquiry initiated against the juvenile being continued and orders made thereon even if such person had ceased to be a juvenile during the course of such enquiry. There would have been no need of enacting Section 3 if only the age of the juvenile would have been determinable by reference to the date of the offence. The crucial date for determining the question whether a person is juvenile is the date when he is brought before the competent authority. (Paras 15, 16, 17 & 22)

       (ii) Precedent-Rule of sub-silentio-A decision not expressed, no accompanied by reason and not proceeding on conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

       A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub-silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined. (Para 19)

       (iii) Interpretation of Statutes-Interpretation by looking into preamble of an enactment-Permissible if language used in an enactment is ambiguous.

       If the language used by Parliament is ambiguous the Court is permitted to look into the preamble for construing the provisions of an Act. If the words employed in an enactment may spell a doubt as to their meaning it would be useful to so interpret the enactment as to harmonise it with the object which the Legislature had in its view. (Para 21)