Legality of the trail under ordinary procedural law.

Crl.M.P.No.150 of 1985 is an application by the 5th accused in the case to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.436 of 1983, on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kancheepuram, on the ground that he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence on 11.5.1981, though he is a major now. It is then stated that the charge-sheet itself was filed belatedly in 1983. I may at once state that mere delay in filing the charge-sheet is not a ground for quashing.

2. Now, with reference to the plea that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, this plea was not taken up by the petitioner all these years or at the earliest opportunity. Now, some witnesses have been examined in the case, and at this stage, this application has been filed. The long delay casts reflection on the bona fides of the Petitioner's case, and I do not think that this is a sufficient ground for quashing.

3. Of course, it is common ground that the petitioner has since become major though he might have been a juvenile on the date of the offence. This again is not a ground for quashing since at the time of trial, the petitioner was admittedly a major and an adult. In this connection, it is necessary to make some observations in view of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner, that the case should be split up and he should be tried only as a juvenile. Even assuming that he was a juvenile offender on the date of offence, there is nothing illegal in the trial in view of the fact that he has since attained majority. Two Statutes relate to the trial, detention and training of adolescent offenders, and they are, The Madras Children Act and The Madras Borstal Schools Act. The Madras Borstal Schools Act provides for the detention and the training of adolescent offenders. ‘Adolescent offender’ is defined as ‘any person who has been convicted of any offence punishable with imprisonment and who at the time of such conviction is not less than 18 or more than 21 years of age. – vide Section 2(1) of the said Act. (Underlined supplied). Section 3 vests power in a Court to pass a sentence of detention in Borstal School in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 2 years and more than 5 years but extending is no case beyond the date when the adolescent offender will, in the opinion of the Court attain the age of twenty-three years.

4. The Tamil Nadu Children Act provides for the custody, trial, maintenance, welfare, education and character training of youthful offenders. Under the said Act, ‘child’ is defined as ‘a person under the age of fourteen years. ‘Young person’ is defined as ‘a person who is fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of eighteen years’. ‘Youthful offender’ means ‘any person who has been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment and who at the time of such conviction was under the age of eighteen years’. - VideSection 3 of the Madras Children Act. It is, therefore, to be seen that the point of time for reckoning whether a person is a juvenile or child is the time of conviction and not the time of commission of the offence. The law provides alternative modes of detention in the case of juvenile, either in a Borstal School or Junior or Senior Certified School in lieu of imprisonment. The object is to ensure that a young offender is not exposed to a life in jail where regular criminals are lodged and where the atmosphere will not be congenial for the youthful offender to be reformed and his character properly developed.

5. These special laws therefore do not intend to confer any exemptions of youthful offenders from penal action but only substitute detention in reformatory institutions for incarceration in a regular jail. The only provision in the Penal Law by way of general exceptions is contained in Sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 82 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under the age of seven. Section 83 provides that nothing is an offe