Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ker) 868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J.
Abdul Majeed S/o Hamza – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet No. 1993 of 2006
Decided On : 07-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M. Asokan, Devaprasanth P.J.
For the Respondent: Sanal P. Raj.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Acts of 2000 and 2015 to pending proceedings, based on the definitions of 'juvenile' and 'juvenile in conflict with law', the procedure for pending cases, and the amendments made to the Acts.

Headnote:
Juvenile Justice Acts - Scope and Applicability - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The court discussed the scope and applicability of the Juvenile Justice Acts of 2000 and 2015 in relation to the conviction and sentence of a 49-year-old person for an offence committed at the age of 17 in 1991 when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force. The court resolved the riddle by analyzing the definitions of 'juvenile' and 'juvenile in conflict with law' under the Acts, the procedure for pending cases, and the amendments made to the Acts. The court also considered relevant Supreme Court decisions and amendments to the Acts to determine the applicability of the Acts to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a 49-year-old person convicted for an offence committed at the age of 17 in 1991. The trial and appellate courts convicted and sentenced the petitioner, leading to the revision petition. The key issue was the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Acts of 2000 and 2015 to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was not applicable to the petitioner as he was 27 years old on the relevant date. However, the court determined that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 did not affect the applicability of the 2000 Act to pending proceedings, and therefore, the 2000 Act governed the case. The court concluded that the petitioner should be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders under the 2000 Act.
Issues : The key issue was the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Acts of 2000 and 2015 to the case, particularly in relation to the petitioner's age at the time of the offence and the subsequent amendments to the Acts.
Ratio Decidendi : The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definitions of 'juvenile' and 'juvenile in conflict with law' under the Acts, the procedure for pending cases, and the amendments made to the Acts. The court also considered relevant Supreme Court decisions and amendments to the Acts to determine the applicability of the Acts to the case.
Final Decision : The court allowed the revision in part, confirming the conviction but setting aside the sentence imposed by the appellate court. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The court also provided guidance on the suitable penalty for the petitioner and the actions to be taken in case of non-compliance.

ORDER :

1. What is the scope and applicability of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Acts of 2000 and 2015, in revision, upon the conviction and sentence of a 49 year old person in respect of an offence committed by him in the year 1991, at the age of 17 years, when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force? This exactly is the riddle to be resolved in this revision proceedings.

2. Desirous of getting a job at Saudi Arabia, Master Abdul Majeed, aged 17 years, manipulated the certified copy of the relevant page of his admission register, issued from the school, to make it appear that his date of birth is 05.04.1970 instead of 05.04.1974, since the emigration rules of Saudi Arabia permitted employment of persons aged 21 years and above only at that time. Making use of the above manipulated document, he applied for passport on 24.07.1991, resulting in the consequence of getting entangled by the long arms of law. On the basis of a complaint preferred by the Passport Officer concerned on 03.06.1993, the criminal law was set in motion by the Police; and the above adolescent who is now the revision petitioner herein, along with another person who helped him in processing the passport application, was booked for the commission of offence under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. After the completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhikode Town Police Station laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode in respect of the aforesaid offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and another person by name V.P. Athnal, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

3. The trial commenced before the learned Magistrate on 05.01.2000 as against the petitioner alone since the 2nd accused went absconding. The case was vigorously prosecuted with the examination of 17 witnesses as PW-1 to PW1-7 and marking 20 documents as Ext.P1 to P20 from the part of the prosecution. The accused was given opportunity for defence evidence after recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he did not adduce any evidence. As per the judgment dated 06.12.2003, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967. He was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 468 I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 471 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kozhikode who considered Crl. Appeal No. 794/2003 filed on 01.01.2004, against the above verdict, confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 468 I.P.C. and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 as per the judgment delivered on 31.03.2006. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 471 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court under Section 468 I.P.C. and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 were reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and simple imprisonment for one year respectively. The fine imposed by the trial court under Section 468 I.P.C. was retained by the appellate court, but the fine imposed under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act was scrapped.

5. It is aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court that the petitioner is here with this revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. As already stated above, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the trial conducted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode for the commission of offence on 24.07.1991 under Section 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967, while he was an adol