The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act does not require a denovo trial of non-juvenile accused after the segregation of the juvenile's case.

This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2002 directing denovo trial of the non-juvenile accused, who were facing trial with the juvenile accused, before the trial of the juvenile accused was separated.

2. I have heard Mr. I.H.Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. A. Begm, learned Additional P.P. for the State of Assam as well as Mr. B. Banerjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Laskar, learned counsel representing the private-respondents.

3. The facts, leading to filing of this revision petition, may be stated, in brief, as follows :-

On the basis of the 'Ejahar' filed by the petitioner 05.08.2001 against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for alleged killing of his two brothers, the police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused/respondents for commission of offence under Sections 147/148/149/341/326/323/302 of IPC.

4. Out of all the said accused-respondents, two respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 8 and 9 absconded from the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial commenced before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in the year 2002. During the last 7 years, the trial continued in a snail's pace, and in all 11 prosecution witnesses were examined and also cross-examined including the medical officers and the Investigating Officer. On 05.02.2008, an application was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on behalf of the accused Moin Uddin Borbhuiya @ Kuti Mia Barbhuiya, praying for declaring him to be a juvenile. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi by an order dated 07.03.2009 declared him to be a juvenile.

5. After declaration of accused Moinuddin Borbhuyan as a juvenile, the non-juvenile accused persons, who were facing trial so long, submitted application before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on 01.04.2009 praying for fresh trial of the accused persons, who are not juvenile. Learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi vide impugned order dated 30.05.2009 allowed the petition of the accused petitioner and ordered for fresh trial, i.e. denovo trial of those accused in the case, who are not juvenile, and thus fixed the date for framing fresh charge against the non-juvenile accused. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, reads as follows:-

“30.5.08

All the accused persons are present. Perused the petition No.495/1 dated 1.4.09 filed by the accused Hussain Ahmed with a prayer for an order for fresh trial as one of the accused Moin Uddin has been declared as Juvenile and ordered separate trial for him. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that as one of the accused Moin Uddin has been declared juvenile and ordered for separate trial so the evidence so recorded and the trial proceeded jointly will vitiate the entire trial as per Juvenile Justice Act. He further submitted that there cannot be a joint trial with the juvenile along with the other accused. Accordingly, he submitted for separate fresh trial of the accused persons.

I have also heard the Ld. PP and Ld. Counsel for the informant. Sec. 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides that - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 223 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any other offences together with a person who is not a juvenile, (2) If a juvenile is accused of an offence for which under Sec. 223, CrPC., 1973 or any other law for the time being in force such juvenile and any person who is not a juvenile would, but for the prohibition contained in sub Sec. 1 have been charged and tried together, the Board taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trial for the juvenile and the other persons. So, it appears that there can not be a joint trial with juvenile offender along with other non-juvenile accused. As the trial of a criminal case commenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document