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

2001 Supreme(Raj) 1938

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
K.S.Rathore, J.
Moola Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1245 of 2001.
Decided On : 5-12-2001

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:C.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate along with Saransh Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Rizwan Alvi, Public Prosecutor.
For the Complainant:M.K. Kaushik, Advocate.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 447 and 354 - Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section 438 - Offence under - This was a matter in which anticipatory bail was rejected - Petition was filed against the order - It could not be established without enquiry whether accused is juvenile or not - Petition was filed before High Court under section 482 for directions to ASJ to place the matter before the Board - Both the Acts (i) Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Old Act) (ii) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (New Act) provide for enquiry to establish the fact whether a person is juvenile or not under section 32 (Old Act) and under section 40 (New Act) - The high court stated that Sessions Judge has to place the matter before the board for such enquiry and that petitioner/accused has the liberty to produce any material before the court to support his contention - The high court issued directions and disposed of the petition.

JUDGMENT

1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 of the Code of Procedure in the matter of FIR No. 53 of 2001 of Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu for the offence under Sections 376, 447 and 354 IPC has been preferred against the order dated 29.9.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Regarding maintainability of the misc. petition, learned counsel for the complainant Shri M.K. Kaushik has raised preliminary objection.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

4. Mr. Kaushik has referred the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Section 7 and 12 of which are reproduced hereunder:

7. Procedure to the followed by a Magistrate not empowered under the Act : (1) When any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board under this Act is of the opinion that a person brought before him under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence), is a juvenile or the child, he shall without any delay record such . opinion and forward the juvenile or the child and the record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding.

(2) The competent authority to which the proceeding is forwarded under Sub-section (1) shall hold the inquiry as if the juvenile or the child had originally been brought before it.

12. Bail of Juvenile : (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub section (1) by the officer- in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in-the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.

5. Learned counsel Shri Kaushik in support of his contentions placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2914/2001 "Sachin v. State " and two more matters which are decided by the common judgment vide order dated 21st September, 2001 wherein this Court has held as under : "that Sachin was minor at the time of committing of alleged crime, his date of birth being 6.7.1984 i.e. on the date when the crime is said to have been committed he was of 16 years plus, therefore, the counsel submits that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, such an accused should not be arrested and if arrested, he is entitled to protection under the Act. Section 12 of the act prescribes that when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is fur






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top