JUDGMENT - KAMAT G.D., J.:—The essential controversy in this revision application is whether Sarita and Sharmila, who are admittedly 15 and 17 years' old, are to be tried by the Court of Sessions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or to be proceeded with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 by the authorities mentioned thereunder.

2. The facts are very simple. For an offence of murder and other related offences under section 324 and others purported to have been committed on 19th April 1988, the petitioners alongwith Satish Narayan Sawant, Mohan Narayan Sawant and Smt. Yeshoda Narayan Sawant were charge-sheeted by the Ponda Police. On perusal of the charge-sheet on July 8, 1988 the Judicial Magistrate, Ponda, committed aforementioned Satish, Mohan and Smt. Yeshoda to the Court of sessions to answer the charge under sections 302, 323 and 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly this was an order made under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while doing that the Magistrate directed that the petitioners be tried by him for the offences under sections 143, 147, 149, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate believed that he was perforced to make such order because the Children Act, 1960 was in force in this territory and that in the absence of the Children's Court he is himself competent to try them.

3. When the trial began against Satish and others before the Court of the Sessions, Panaji, the learned Sessions Judge on hearing the Counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor directed that the petitioners be brought before him for trial by him for the disclosure of the offences under section 302 and other offences under the Indian Penal Code but, however, further directed having regard to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 that the trial in relation to the petitioners be held separately. It is against this order that the present revision application is directed by the two juvenile delinquents.

The learned Sessions Judge held that section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be ignored and when offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life, such offences will have to be tried by a Court of sessions under Criminal Procedure Code.

4. There is great merit in the contention raised by Counsel for the two petitioners and on a perusal of few sections of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 read with certain sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure it will clearly establish that even in matters of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life the jurisdiction of the Court of sessions is totally excluded. Without such delay I will examine some of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 along with some relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. In the first place it be noticed that with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 any law corresponding to that Act stands repealed. It is common ground that with the enforcement of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the Children Act, 1960 stands repealed and the entire field relating to the custody, rehabilitation, punishment, trials are now covered by the Act of 1986. This Act enacted by Parliament in the year 1986 in its preamble states that it is to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected and delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to, and disposition of delinquent juveniles. By the provision of sub-section (3) of section 1 the Central Government has brought this Act into force as from 2nd October, 1987. Delinquent Juveniles have been defined in section 2(e) to mean a juvenile who has been found to have committed an offence. A juvenile means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years and a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years and this is spoken to in section 2(h). Offence has been defined under section 2(n) to mean an offence punishable under any law

Click Here to Read the rest of this document