SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Bom) 105

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
KAMAT, J.
MISS SARITA NARAYAN SAWANT AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
STATE AND OTHERS
Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 3 of 1989,
Decided On : 11 -4 -1989 and 13 -4 -1989

THE JURISDICTION OF ALL COURTS OTHER THAN THE JUVENILE COURT HAS BEEN TACITLY AND EXPRESSLY OUSTED AND THE JUVENILES ARE LIABLE TO BE DEALT WITH ONLY BY THE JUVENILE COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER S.5 READ WITH S.7 THEREOF.

Headnote:

JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT - JURISDICTION - TRIAL OF JUVENILES - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - [SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 27, 223] - JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT - [SECTIONS 3, 5, 7, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26] - THE JURISDICTION OF ALL COURTS OTHER THAN THE JUVENILE COURT HAS BEEN TACITLY AND EXPRESSLY OUSTED AND THE JUVENILES ARE LIABLE TO BE DEALT WITH ONLY BY THE JUVENILE COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER S.5 READ WITH S.7 THEREOF.

Fact of the Case:

THE PETITIONERS, AGED 15 AND 17, WERE CHARGESHEETED ALONG WITH OTHERS FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 302, 323, AND 324 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. THE MAGISTRATE COMMITTED THE OTHER ACCUSED TO THE COURT OF SESSION BUT DIRECTED THAT THE PETITIONERS BE TRIED BY HIM FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 149, 323, AND 504 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. THE SESSIONS JUDGE DIRECTED THAT THE PETITIONERS BE TRIED SEPARATELY BY HIM FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND OTHERS BUT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986.

Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE JURISDICTION OF ALL COURTS OTHER THAN THE JUVENILE COURT HAS BEEN TACITLY AND EXPRESSLY OUSTED AND THE JUVENILES ARE LIABLE TO BE DEALT WITH ONLY BY THE JUVENILE COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER S.5 READ WITH S.7 THEREOF. FURTHER, REGARD BEING HAD TO S.7(2) WHERE A JUVENILE COURT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTITUTED FOR ANY AREA THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS IS EMPOWERED TO DEAL WITH JUVENILE DELINQUENTS.

Issues: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS, WHO WERE ADMITTEDLY JUVENILES, WERE TO BE TRIED BY THE COURT OF SESSION UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 OR TO BE PROCEEDED WITH UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986.

Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986, WHICH REPEALED THE CHILDREN ACT, 1960, AND ESTABLISHED A SCHEME FOR THE CARE, PROTECTION, TREATMENT, DEVELOPMENT, AND REHABILITATION OF NEGLECTED AND DELINQUENT JUVENILES. THE COURT NOTED THAT THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS BUT INSTEAD PROVIDES FOR ORDERS SUCH AS ALLOWING THE JUVENILE TO GO HOME AFTER ADVICE OR ADMONITION, PLACING THE JUVENILE IN THE CARE OF A PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR OTHER FIT PERSON, OR SENDING THE JUVENILE TO A SPECIAL HOME.

Final Decision: THE COURT QUASHED THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE AND DIRECTED THAT THE PETITIONERS BE DEALT WITH BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PONDA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986.

JUDGEMENT

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 Session 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 S.324 and others purported to have been committed on 19th April, 1988, the petitioners along with Satish Narayan Sawant, Mohan Narayan Sawant and Smt. Yeshoda Narayan Sawant were chargesheeted by the Ponda Police. On perusal of the chargesheet on July 8, 1988 the Judicial Magistrate, Ponda, committed aforementioned Satish, Mohan and Smt. Yeshoda to the Court of Session to answer the charge under Sections 302, 323, and 324 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly this was an order made under S.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 Session, 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 S.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 Session Judge held that S.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 Session 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 Session is totally excluded. Without much 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 S.1 the Central Government has brought this Act into force as from 2nd October, 1987. Delinquent Juveniles have been defined in S.2(e) to mean 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 S.2(h). Offence has been defined under S.2(n) to mean an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force. On a combination of reading Sections 2(e) and 2(n),






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top