SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI., D.A.Desai, E.S.Venkataramiah, JJ.
Sheo Shankar Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No., 220 of 1980
Date of Decision, 3/18/80
Child Has Committed Offence - We had called for a report from civil surgeon on age of appellant - Since it was argued before us that when offence was committed appellant was a child within meaning of children third ordinance - Civil surgeon has sent his report saying that appellant - Since offence was committed about five years before date of examination by civil surgeon appellant must have been less than years of age then - Ordinance defines a child to mean a boy or a girl who has not attained age of sixteen years or eighteen years respectively as case may be - Since appellant was less than years of age at time when offence was committed provisions of ordinance are clearly attracted - Held, Prosecution against appellant was pending on date when ordinance came into force - Ordinance provides insofar as is material that notwithstanding anything contained in this act all proceedings in respect of a child pending in any court in any area on date on which this act comes into force in that area shall be continued in that court as if this act had not been passed and if court finds that child has committed any offence it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence it shall forward child to children court which shall pass orders in respect of that child in accordance with provisions of this act as if court was satisfied on inquiry that child has committed offence - Ordinance provides to extent material that where a children court is satisfied on enquiry that a child has committed an offence children court may pass any of orders provided for under clause - It now becomes necessary to direct that children court will deal with case and pass an appropriate order - Order Accordingly.
(1) HEARD counsel. Special leave granted.
(2) WE had called for a report from the Civil Surgeon on the age of the appellant - Sheo Shankar Singh - since it was argued before us that, when the offence was committed, the appellant was a child within the meaning of the Bihar Children Third Ordinance, 1979. The Civil Surgeon of Bhojpur, Arrah, has sent his report saying that on 14/02/1980, the appellant was between 18 to 20 years of age. Since the offence was committed about five years before the date of examination by the Civil Surgeon, the appellant must have been less than 16 years of age then.
(3) THE Bihar Ordinance defines a child to mean "a boy or a girl who has not attained the age of sixteen years or eighteen years, respectively, as the case may be". Since the appellant was less than 16 years of age at the time when the offence was committed, the provisions of the Ordinance are clearly attracted.
(4) THE prosecution against the appellant was pending on the date when the Ordinance came into force. Clause 26 of the Ordinance provides, insofar as is material that: Not withstanding anything contained in this Act all proceedings in respect of a child pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed; and if the court finds that the child has committed any offence, it shall .record such finding and instead of passing any sentence, it shall forward the child to the childrens court which shall pass orders in respect of that child in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if the court was satisfied on inquiry under this Act that the child has committed the offence.
(5) CLAUSE 21 of the Ordinance provides, to the extent material, that "(1) Where a childrens court is satisfied on enquiry that a child has committed an offence. . . the childrens court may" pass any of the orders provided for under the clause. It now becomes necessary to direct that the childrens court will deal with the case and pass an appropriate order under Clause 21.
(6) IN view of the provisions of the Bihar Ordinance we confirm the order of conviction but set aside the order of sentence and remit the matter to the childrens court for passing an appropriate order under Clause 21 of the Ordinance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.