2007 (1) Crimes 589
SHORT NOTE
PATNA HIGH COURT
I.P. Singh, J.
Amit Kumar Thakur @ Amit
Ranjan Thakur - Appellant
versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Crl. Misc. Case No. 26296 of 2005
Decided on 27-4-2006

IMPORTANT POINT
Where an accused on the date of incident was out of purview of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would not be attracted even if on 1.4.2001 accused was below 18 years of age.
Held: Before coming to discuss the case law on this point I will firstly refer to undisputed facts. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born on 23.8.1983. It has also not been disputed that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 23.3.2000. From this it would appear that on the alleged date of occurrence the age of the petitioner was 16 years and 7 months. In the case of Pratap Singh (supra) it has been held in paragraph 35(a) as follows:
“(a)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”.
From this it would appear that reckoning date for the determination of the age of the petitioner would be 23.3.2000 which is alleged to be the date of occurrence when admittedly he was aged about 16 years and 7 months. On this date 1986 Act was in force. Section 2(b) of this Act defined a juvenile to be a boy under 16 years of age. As per this definition on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner cannot be said to be a juvenile since as stated above he was aged about 16 years and 7 months on the said date. From this it would appear that 1986 Act will not apply to the petitioner he being not a juvenile within the meaning of this Act. As such the ordinary criminal law will apply to him. Thus on 1.4.2001 when 2000 Act came into force no proceeding under 1986 Act was pending against the present petitioner. What was pending against him was a regular criminal case under the provision of the Code.
The next question that will arise for consideration in this connection would be whether the case of the petitioner will be covered under 2000 Act so as to bring him within the definition of juvenile. It may be mentioned here that as per Section 2(k) of 2000 Act a juvenile is a person who has not completed 18 years. As noticed above this Act had come into force on 1.4.2001 and its provisions are not retrospective.
Now coming to the decision in the case of Pratap Singh (supra) its paragraph 35(b) runs as follows:
“(b) 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”.
To make the law as laid down in this paragraph applicable to a case the following conditions are required to be fulfilled, namely:
(i)Any proceeding against the petitioner is pending under 1986 Act on 1.4.2001 in a Court of law or before any authority, and
(ii)On 1.4.2001 the person concerned has not completed 18 years of age.
In the present case since on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner was allegedly above 16 years of age the provisions of 1986 Act would not be attracted since he could not be treated a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(b) of 1986 Act. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that on 1.4.2001, when 2000 Act came into force, any proceeding initiated under 1986 Act was pending. From this it would appear that this condition as laid down in paragraph 35(b) of the judgment passed in the case of Pratap Singh (supra) will not apply. This being the position it is clear than on 1.4.2001 when the new Act came into force no proceeding under 1986 Act was pending. Hence, the provisions of 2000 Act cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
From this paragraph it will also appear that in order to make it applicable the petitioner has to be under 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001. In the present case since the petitioner was born on 23.8.1983 he completed 18 years of age on 23.8.2001. Since 2000 Act came into force on 1.4.2001 obviously on this date the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age. So that second part of paragraph 35(b)of the judgment of the Pratap Singh (supra) will apply to the case of the present petitioner. However, since the first part of this paragraph will not apply to the present petitioner since he being above 16 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence on 23.3.2000 no proceeding would have been initiated against him under 1986 Act. This being the position it cannot be said that on 1.4.2001 any proceeding against the petitioner was pending under 1986 Act. From this it would become clear that the first part of this paragraph will not be applicable to the petitioner, he being not a juvenile on the alleged date of occurrence as per 1986 Act. Hence, this part will not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the second part of this paragraph, namely, he was under the age of 18 years on 1.4.2001 will also not be applicable to the present petitioner and, therefore, it is clear that he will not be covered under 2000 Act and will not be treated to a juvenile. (Paras 5 to 11)
*******

Headnote:Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 2(k) - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Section 2(b) - Petitioner accused was alleged to have committed murder on 24.3.2000 and was arrested on 3.4.2000 - He was born on 23.8.1983 and thus was 16 years and 7 months on date of occurrence - His prayer for referring inquiry for determination to be Juvenile under section 33 of the Act was dismissed by trial Court - Revision - On alleged date of occurrence petitioner was more than 16 years of age hence provisions of 1986 Act would not be attracted - When Act of 2000 came into operation on 1.4.2001 since no proceedings under 1986 Act were pending, provisions of 2000 Act could not be made applicable - No illegality in impugned order.

       Result: Petition dismissed.