Back
Supreme Court of India
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA, B.P. SINGH, H.K. SEMA & S.B. SINHA
Pratap Singh
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Another
Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2005 With Special Leave Petition (crl.) 3749 of 2001
Decided on: 02-02-2005
A. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Sections 2 and 3 -Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, Sections 2(e) and 3 - Age of Juvenile offender - The reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the Court.The 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding in any court/authority initiated under the 1986 Act and is pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001. [Paras 8, 14, 33,]
B. Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as came into force with effect from 1.4.2001), Sections 20 and 64 - Offence committed by a juvenile when 1986 Act was in force - During trial, Act of 1986 repealed and Act of 2000 came into force - Provisions of Act, 2000 will apply to pending cases provided the person was juvenile and had not completed the age of 18 years from the date when Act of 2000 was enforced. (i.e. 1.4.2001).
C. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Sections 3 and 26 - Interpretation of Juvenile Justice Act - The Act being a piece of social legislation is meant for the protection of infants who commit criminal offences and, therefore, such provisions should be liberally and meaningfully construed so as to advance the object of the Act, 1982(2) SCC 202 relied.
D. Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, Sections 3 and 64 - Where an inquiry has been initiated and the juvenile ceases to be a juvenile i.e. crosses the age of 18 years, the inquiry must be continued and orders made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a juvenile.
Per S.B. Sinha, J. -
E. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Aim of the Act-The Act is aimed at achieving the following objects :- The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 is aimed at achieving the following objects :
(i) To lay down an uniform legal frame-work for juvenile justice in the country so as to ensure that no child under any circumstances is lodged in jail or police lock-up. This is being ensured by establishing Juvenile Welfare Boards and Juvenile Courts;
(ii) To provide for a specialised approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency in its full range in keeping with the development needs of the child found in any situation of social maladjustment;
(iii) To spell out the machinery and infrastructure required for the case, protection, treatment, developments and rehabilitations of various categories of children coming within the purview of the Juvenile Justice system. This is proposed to be achieved by establishing observation homes, juvenile homes for neglected juveniles and special homes for delinquent juveniles;
(iv) To establish norms and standard for the administration of juvenile justice in terms of investigation and prosecution, adjudication and disposition and case, treatment and rehabilitation;
(v) To develop appropriate linkages and coordination between the formal system of juvenile justice and voluntary agencies engaged in the welfare of neglected or society maladjusted children and to specifically define the areas of their responsibilities and roles;
(vi) To constitute special offences in relation to juveniles and provide for punishment therefor;
(vii) To bring the operation of the juvenile justice system in the country in conformity with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.[Para 45]
F. Interpretation of statics - Statute must be construed in such a manner so as to make it effective and operative on the principle of Ut res magis valea quam pereat - The courts lean strongly against any constructions which tend to reduce a statute to a futility - When two meanings, one making the statute absolutely vague, wholly intractable and absolutely meaningless and the other leading to certainty and meaningful are given, in such an event the latter should be followed.
[Para 75]
G. Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as it came into force with effect from 1.4.2001), Section 20 - Proceedings pending in Court when Juvenile Act of 2000 came into force - For attracting Section 20, it must be established that : (i) on the date of coming into force the proceedings in which the petitioner was accused was pending; and (ii) on that day he was below the age of 18 years - For the purpose of the said Act, both the aforementioned conditions are required to be fulfilled.
[Para 88]
H. Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, Section 70 - Model Rules framed by Central Govt. - Central Govt. has not been given power to frame rules under Juvenile Justice.
I. Prospective and Retrospective - Rule against retrospective cannot be applied to legislations which are explanatory and declaranatory in nature. JT 2004(8) SC 589 relied.
[Para 95]
J. Evidence Act, Section 35 - To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1796 relied.
[Para 103]
Judgment
H.K. Sema, J.
Leave granted.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2001 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2001.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:-
First Information Report was lodged before the police in Bokaro city registered as P.S. case No.1/99 dated 1.1.1999 for the offence under Sections 364A, 302/201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC to the effect that on 31.12.1998 the appellant was alleged as one of the conspirators to have caused the death of the deceased by poisoning. On the basis of the FIR the appellant was arrested and produced before the C.J.M. Chas on 22.11.1999. On production, the learned CJM assessed the age of the appellant to be around 18 years old. On 28.2.2000, a petition was filed on behalf of the appellant claiming that he was a minor on the date of occurrence i.e. 31.12.1998, whereupon the learned CJM transmitted the case to the Juvenile Court. The appellant was produced in the Juvenile Court on 3.3.2000. On his production the Juvenile Court assessed the age of the appellant by appearance to be between 15 and 16 years and directed the Civil Surgeon to constitute a Medical Board for the purpose of assessing the age of the appellant by scientific examination and submit a report. No such Medical Board was constituted. Thus, the learned ACJM asked the parties to adduce evidence and on examining the school leaving certificate and mark sheet of Central Board of Secondary Education came to the finding that the appellant was below 16 years of age as on 31.12.1998 taking the date of birth of the appellant as 18.12.1983 recorded in the aforesaid certificate. The appellant was then released on bail.
3. Aggrieved thereby the informant filed an appeal before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, who after referring to the judgment of this Court rendered in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488 disposed of the appeal on 19.2.2001 holding that the Juvenile Court had erred in not taking note of the fact that the date of production before the Juvenile Court was the date relevant for deciding whether the appellant was juvenile or not for the purpose of trial and directed a fresh inquiry to assess the age of the appellant. Aggrieved thereby the appellant moved the High Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition. The High Court while disposing of the Revision has followed the decision rendered by this Court in Arnit Das (supra) and held that reckoning date is the date of production of the accused before the Court and not the date of the occurrence of the offence.
4. The High Court held that for determining the age of juvenile, the provisions of 1986 Act would apply and not 2000 Act. The High Court, however, took the view that the date of birth, as recorded in the school and the school certificate, should be the best evidence for fixing the age of the appellant. High Court was also of the view that any other evidence in proof of age would be of much inferior quality. As the enquiry is pending, we need not delve into this question.
5. Having noticed the conflicting views in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 and Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan (1982) 2 SCC 202, this matter has been referred to the Constitution Bench by an order dated 7.2.2003. It reads:-
"The High Court in its impugned judgment has relied on a two-Judge bench decision of this Court in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, 2000(5) SCC 488. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in Arnit Das (supra), the decision of this Court in Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajashtan, 1982(2) SCC 202, was not considered. The point arising is one of the frequent recurrence and view of the law taken in this case is likely to have a bearing on the new Act, that is, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 also, the matter deserves to be heard by the Constitution Bench of this Court. Be placed
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
