2009 Supreme(SC) 898

2009(3) Supreme 621
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Vikram Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 764/2007
Decided on : 01-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
As per Rule 97(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 all cases pending which have not received a finality is to be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the 2000 Act as amended on 22/8/2006 and 2007 Rules.

Headnote:Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 – Rule 97(2} – Appellant convicted for life imprisonment and other terms between 7 and 10 years – Plea of appellant that he was a Juvenile when occurrence took place on 20/2/1996 – Appellant was shown to have been arrested on 1/3/1996 – At the time of conviction. Juvenile Justice Act, was in operation – The 1986 Act was subsequently repealed by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – On 22.8.2006 Section 2 (1) of the Act was amended stating that “Juvenile in conflict with law means juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of such offence – The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 were brought into force on 26th October 2007 – As per Rule 97(2} all cases pending which have not received a finality would be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the 2000 Act as amended on 22/8/2006 and 2007 Rules – High Court judgment was of 26/5/2006 when Rule 97(2) as applicable was not in existence as it was brought into force in 2007 – Appellant held entitled to benefit under the provisions of 2000 Act as amended from 22.9.2006, and 2007 Rules – Hence while confirming conviction, considering period of custody already suffered by the appellant, direction given that he shall be released from custody forthwith – Appeal allowed to said extent. (Paras 4, 5 & 6)

       Facts of the Case :

        Controversy herein in the instant case related to legality of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judger Kurukshetra, in dealing with the present matter. According to the appellant, he was a Juvenile when the occurrence took place on 20/2/1996. The appellant was shown to have been arrested on 1/3/1996.

       Findings of the Court :

        At the time of conviction. Juvenile Justice Act, was in operation. The 1986 Act was subsequently repealed by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On 22.8.2006 Section 2(1) of the Act was amended stating that “Juvenile in conflict with lawn means juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of such offence. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007were brought into force on 26th October 2007. As per Rule 97(2) all cases pending which have not received a finality will be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the 2000 Act as amended on 22/8/2006 and 2007 Rules. High Court judgment was of 26/5/2006 when Rule 97(2) as applicable was not in existence as it was brought into force in 2007. Appellant was held entitled to benefit under the provisions of 2000 Act as amended from 22.9.2006, and 2007 Rules. Hence while confirming conviction, considering period of custody already suffered by the appellant, direction given that he shall be released from custody forthwith unless he was required in custody in any other case. Appeal was allowed to said extent.

       Result : Appeal allowed.