2008(2) Crimes 9 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Balu @ Bakthvatchalu — Petitioner
versus
State of Tamil Nadu — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 295 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4905 of 2007)
Decided on : 12-02-2008
(2000) 5 SCC 488 – Referred.
(2005) 3 SCC 551 – Relied upon.
(b) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 2(k) – Trial judge directed to hold the enquiry in regard to the age of the appellant on the date of commission of the offence – In the event it is found that the appellant was a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of the Act, trial court should proceed with the matter in accordance with law. (Para 17)
(2005) 12 SCC 615; (2006) 5 SCC 584; (2006) 9 SCC 428.
Facts of the case:
1. Appellant was prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the India Penal Code.
2. The learned trial court delivered a judgment on 28th April, 2000 showing appellant’s age to be ‘18’.
3. An application was filed for sending him to Borstal School in terms of Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, which was refused.
4. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
Findings of the Court :
In view of the trial court showing the age of the appellant as 18 years in its judgment, it is required to determine whether he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant was prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the India Penal Code. The occurrence took place on 20th April, 1998. He was arrested on the charge of murder of one Ramu Maistry on 8th May, 1998. Upon completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against him on 30th November, 1998. The learned trial court delivered a judgment on 28th April, 2000. In the said judgment his age was shown to be ‘18’. An application was filed for sending him to Borstal School in terms of Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, which was refused. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment. This Court issued a limited notice as to whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident.
3. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that in view of the materials placed on records, an inquiry should have been initiated as regards the age of the appellant.
4. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” was applicable when the incident took place, In terms whereof, a juvenile, under Section 2(h) was defined as a boy who has not attained the age of 16 yeaRs.
5. The Parliament, however, enacted, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It came into force with effect from 1st April, 2001.
6. Section 2(k) defines ‘juvenile’ to mean a person who has not completed eighteen years of age.
7. Section 20 of the Act reads as under :-
“20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.”
8. A question was raised as to whether the date on which the incident took place or the date on which the accused was produced before the Court would be the relevant date for computing the age of juvenile in view of the decision of this Court in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar,1 (2000) 5 SCC 488. The correctness of the said decision came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand,2 (2005) 3 SCC 551. The Constitution Bench held;
“31. Section 20 of the Act as quoted above deals with the special provision in respect of pending cases and begins with a non obstante clause. The sentence “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act came into force” has great significance. The proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court referred to in Section 20 of the Act are relatable to proceedings initiated before the 2000 Act came into force and which are pending when the 2000 Act came into force. The term “any court” would include even ordinary criminal courts. If the person was a “juvenile” under the 1986 Act the proceedings would not be pending in criminal courts. They would be pending in criminal courts only if the boy had crossed 16 years or the girl had crossed 18 yeaRs. This shows that Section 20 refers to cases where a person had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the pending case shall continue in that court as if the 2000 Act has not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.