1994 Supreme(AP) 456

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA, M.N.RAO
Bandela Ailaiah - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. by Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Decided On : 10-07-94

The crucial date for determining whether an accused is a juvenile is the age of the accused on the date of the offence, and not the age at the time of inquiry or trial.

Headnote:

JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT - [JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986] - [SECTIONS 2(E), 2(H), 5, 7, 18, 20, 21, 22, 32] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973] - [SECTIONS 6, 209] - [INDIAN ARMS ACT] - [SECTION 27] - [TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987] - [SECTIONS 3, 6] - [CONSTITUTION OF INDIA] - [ARTICLE 21] - SUMMARY - The appellant, a juvenile delinquent, was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302, 148, 506, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The High Court held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (the Act) were applicable to the case and that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to try the appellant. The Court interpreted various provisions of the Act and concluded that the crucial date for determining whether an accused is a juvenile is the age of the accused on the date of the offence, and not the age at the time of inquiry or trial. The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to be released on bail and shifted to an observation home. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated among all Judicial Officers in the State for their guidance.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a juvenile delinquent, was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302, 148, 506, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (the Act) were applicable to the case and that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to try the appellant.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 are applicable to the case? 2. Whether the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 are applicable to the case. 2. The Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to try the appellant.

Final Decision: The judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge are set aside. Furthermore all the proceedings conducted so far against the appellant by the courts below are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders to send the appellant and the proceedings, before the competent authority either constituted under section 5 of the Act or who may exercise powers under section 7 of the Act and thereafter, the matter shall be disposed of by such authority in accordance with law. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he shall furnish security in a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 with one surety and shall enter into a personal bond for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge. He shall be immediately shifted from the jail where he is now undergoing the sentence, to the Government Observation Home for Boys, Warangal which is declared as such by the State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 189 Home (Prisons-D) Department dated 10-4-1989 and he shall stay there till he is released on bail. All the disqualification s attached to the appellant due to the order of detention, conviction and sentence, shall be taken as eschewed as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act.