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

2016 Supreme(Cal) 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
R.K. BAG, J.
Md. Suifuddin - Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
CRR 173 of 2015
Decided on : 13-01-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arnab Chatterjee.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Kaushik Dey.

The determination of age in juvenile justice proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.

Headnote:

JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT - DETERMINATION OF AGE - SECTION 7A - RULE 12 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) RULES, 2007 - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: The court held that the trial court erred in relying solely on the driving license to determine the petitioner's age and failed to conduct a proper inquiry as required under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The court emphasized that the trial court should have considered the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Dighabajar, S.D., Assam, and summoned the appropriate authority to explain the delay in registering the birth. The court also noted that the trial court could have obtained the opinion of the Medical Board if necessary.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, facing trial for offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, claimed juvenility and sought transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board. The trial court rejected the plea, relying on the petitioner's driving license, which indicated a different date of birth than the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry as required under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed it to reconsider the petitioner's plea of juvenility in accordance with the law.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in relying solely on the driving license to determine the petitioner's age? 2. Whether the trial court conducted a proper inquiry as required under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court should have considered the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths and summoned the appropriate authority to explain the delay in registering the birth. The court also noted that the trial court could have obtained the opinion of the Medical Board if necessary.

Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order and directed it to reconsider the petitioner's plea of juvenility in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. BAG, J.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated February 20, 2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 33 of 2009 by filing this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner is facing trial before the court of learned Judge on the allegation of committing offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/ 27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner claimed for transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board by raising the plea of juvenility before the trial court on September 5, 2012. Learned Judge of the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by turning down the plea of juvenility of the petitioner by passing order on February 20, 2014 which is under challenge in this revision. It appears from the impugned order under challenge in the revision that the petitioner relied on the birth certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Dighabajar, S.D., Assam on May 25, 2012. On the other hand, the opposite party relied on the driving licence of the petitioner issued on January 24, 2007. While driving licence of the petitioner pointed out the date of birth as on June 25, 1988, the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths of Dighabajar, S.D., Assam indicates the date of birth as on January 18, 1992. Learned Judge of the trial court did not rely on the said birth certificate as the petitioner applied for obtaining the birth certificate only on May 15, 2012, which is almost after 20 years of taking birth and after registration of this criminal case against the petitioner.

3. With the above factual matrix Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Judge of the court below did not conduct the enquiry as laid down in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. By referring to the said Rules Mr. Chatterjee submits that in the absence of matriculation certificate, learned Judge of the court below should have relied on the birth certificate of the petitioner as laid down in the Rules. The further submission of Mr. Chatterjee is that learned Judge cannot rely on the date of birth recorded in the driving licence issued in favour of the petitioner as the said document is absent from Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the Opposite Party contends that learned Judge of the trial court has followed the procedure laid down in Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for determination of age of the petitioner. According to Mr. Dey, learned Judge of the court below can consider the driving licence which was issued in favour of the petitioner for determination of date of birth of the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties, I would like to hold that whenever a party will raise the plea of juvenility before the trial court, learned Judge of the trial court will make an enquiry, take evidence, if necessary, for determination of age of the party and shall record a clear fining whether the said party is juvenile as laid down in Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On perusal of the impugned order under challenge I do not find that learned Judge of the trial court has recorded any evidence as laid down in Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The “enquiry” referred to in Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 must be conducted by learned Judge of the court below in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Prote

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top