SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 375

S.RAJENDRA BABU, S.S.M.QUADRI
Raj Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

(1) THE appellant before us has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession ofcharas. The prosecution case is that on 22-5-1990, on suspicion the appellant and one Tulsa Bai were apprehended when opium from Tulsa Bai and charas from the appellant were recovered. The trial court acquitted both the accused in separate trials. However, on appeal by the State the judgment of the Sessions Judge was reversed in the case of the appellant by setting aside the acquittal and he had been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Hence this appeal.

(2) IN this appeal it is urged that the appellant was born on 9-12-1974 and as the date of alleged committal of offence was 22-5-1990, and on that day, he was a juvenile being less than 16 years of age, he could not have been tried by the Sessions Court but by the Juvenile Court and hence his conviction is bad. Unfortunately this contention has not been raised at any stage earlier. Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") defines a juvenile



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top