IMPORTANT POINTS
Sec.2(k) and (l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 may be referred to here. Under Sec.2(k), 'juvenile' or 'child' means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. Sec.2(l) defines the term 'juvenile in conflict with law' to mean a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteen years of age as on the date of commission of such offence. The expression in Sec.2(k) and (l) of the J.J. Act of 2000 and the expression in Sec.2(12) and (13) of the J.J. Act of 2015 are the same, namely, 'has not completed the age of eighteen years'.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner is arraigned an accused in a sessions case. Commission of an offence under Sec.20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is the accusation against him. He contends him to be a child in conflict with law. He moved an application before the court of session requesting to forward him to the juvenile justice board for holding an inquiry by the board whether he committed the offence alleged against him. His application was dismissed. The trial court found him not a child in conflict with law. The order dismissing his application is under challenge before this court.

2. Heard Sri.T.G.Ragesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned senior public prosecutor.

3. The petitioner produced a copy of his birth certificate. It is annexe-A1. He was born on 2.8.1997. The offence, if committed, was committed on 30.5.2016. The age of the petitioner as on that day was 18 years 9 months and 28 days, which was why his application met dismissal. The trial court said that the petitioner completed the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence.

4. The question is whether the petitioner is a child in conflict with law to be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, the J.J.Act of 2015). Sec.2(12) defines 'child' and Sec.2(13) defines 'child in conflict with law'. The definitions are (i) 'child' means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age and (ii) 'child in conflict with law' means a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of such offence. The petitioner contends that a person completes eighteen years of age only on the previous midnight of his 19th birthday. According to the petitioner, he is a child in conflict with law since he allegedly committed the offence before his nineteenth birthday.

5. The contention of the petitioner is without merit. A person cannot be considered a child or a child in conflict with law as defined in Sec.2(12) and (13) of the J.J.Act of 2015 till the previous midnight of his 19th birth anniversary. What do the two definitions do mean by saying that a child or a child in conflict with law is a person who has not completed eighteen years of age is that he has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, in other words, he is under eighteen years of age. The definitions do not at all suggest that he continues to be a child or a child in conflict with law till he attains the age of nineteen years. He ceases to be a child when he attains the age of eighteen years. Thereafter he is not a child in conflict with law if he commits an offence. No other interpretation is possible.

6. There are provisions in the J.J.Act of 2015 itself to reject the interpretation attempted by the petitioner as one impossible. Sec.2(35) defines 'juvenile' to mean a child below the age of eighteen years. When that be so, it cannot be said that a person who is above the age of eighteen years is a child or a child in conflict with law if he is under nineteen years of age. Sec.6(1) reads as follows :

Any person, who has completed eighteen years of age, and is apprehended for committing an offence when he was below the age of eighteen years, then, such person shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be treated as a child during the process of inquiry.

The words “below the age of eighteen years” appearing in Sec.6(1) are underscored by me to supply emphasis. If the interpretation of the petitioner is correct, the words used in Sec.6(1) would have been 'below the age of nineteen years' instead of the words 'below the age of eighteen years'. The expression 'who has completed the age of eighteen years' and the expression 'when he was below the age of eighteen years', both used in Sec.6(1), have the same meaning. He cannot be a person who is above eighteen years of age, but below nineteen years of age. The provisions refer