( 1 ) THIS reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court-I, Davangere in S. C. No. 29 of 2004 seeking decision of this Court on a question of law as well as interpretation of certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'act No. 56 of 2000') vis-a-vis Section 27 of the Cr. P. C. In view of the difficulty that has arisen to apply in view of the principles mentioned in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna v State of Kamataka.

( 2 ) THE respondent-Harshad, a juvenile has been charge-sheeted along with others for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the IPC. In the charge-sheet filed by the CPI, Davangere, the respondent-juvenile has been ranked as accused 9. As he was found to be juvenile, hi's case was separated from S. C. No. 6 of 2003 and given a new number as S. C. No. 29 of 2004. Thereafter, the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Davangere took cognizance of the offences and registered a case against the respondent-Juvenile as Juvenile Case No. 11 of 2003 and forwarded the same to the Juvenile Justice Board at shimoga, constituted as per notification issued by the State Government dated 25-7-2003 under the provisions of the Act No. 56 of 2000. The juvenile Justice Board sitting at Shimoga, presumably thinking that the offences were triable by a Court of Sessions committed the case to the sessions Court, Davangere as per its order dated 19-3-2004 and thereafter, the same was renumbered as S. C. No. 29 of 2004 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Davangere. After establishment of fast Track Court, the same has been transferred to the Fast Track court wherein it is pending.

( 3 ) THE Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, noticing that as the juvenile Justice Board had already been constituted and in fact as it had taken up the case, but had committed the respondent to take his trial only in view of one of the offences exclusively triable by a Court of sessions, directed the State as well as the respondent and his Counsel to submit their views in this regard with an intention to find out the exact legal position. Both the sides relied upon the following pronouncements: (1) Sunita v State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) ; (2) 2001 Supreme 378; (3) Krishna's case.

( 4 ) AFTER going through various pronouncements, as the learned Judge opined that it is the juvenile Justice Board which is empowered to try the case of the juvenile, but, finding it difficult to over-come the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Krishna, has referred the following questions for consideration to this Court: (1) Whether the Sessions Court at Davangere will have jurisdiction to deal with a juvenile in a case committed to it under Section 209 of the Cr. P. C. , by the Juvenile Justice board, Shimoga? or whether the Sessions Court can try the case committed to it, by a Magistrate or Board other than jurisdictional magistrate? (2) Whether Section 27 of the Cr. P. C. read with pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna, has overriding effect over Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 or vice-versa? or which Court/board has to deal with a juvenile in respect of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life?

( 5 ) AS important questions of law were to be decided, we had issued notice to the State, now represented by Sri Chandramouli, learned State public Prosecutor. This Court had also issued notice to the guardian of the juvenile and the juvenile was represented by Smt. Shanthala, learned Advocate.

( 6 ) IN order to consider the questions before us, it is necessary to look into the provisions of law relating to juvenile offenders and Criminal procedure Code.

( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the need for care and protection and for providing proper care and treatment of the juveniles instead

Click Here to Read the rest of this document