Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Sampath - Appellant
Versus
The State, Represented by The Sub- Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem - Respondent
Crl.R.C.Sr. No. 12712 of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2023
Criminal Revision - Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 101, Section 102 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 101 and Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and their implications on the maintainability of the Criminal Revision. The court found that the appeal will lie against an order of the Board within a period of 30 days from the date of such order, and the appeal may be entertained after the expiry of such period of 30 days if it is satisfied by the appellant. The court also highlighted the powers of revision of the High Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. and concluded that the Criminal Revision was not maintainable before the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 379 of IPC by the Juvenile Justice Board and sentenced to undergo 3 years imprisonment. The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision challenging the conviction and sentence imposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Criminal Revision was not maintainable at the SR stage itself, based on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: Maintainability of the Criminal Revision under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal will lie against an order of the Board within a period of 30 days from the date of such order, and the appeal may be entertained after the expiry of such period of 30 days if it is satisfied by the appellant. The court also emphasized the limitations and powers of revision of the High Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as not maintainable at the SR stage itself.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to allow the revision by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Salem in J.C.No.100 of 2022 dated 25.11.2022.)
1. The Crl.R.C.SR.No.12712 of 2023 is placed for maintainability.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.508 of 2022 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file as J.C.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Salem. Thereafter, when the petitioner was questioned, he admitted his guilt. Recording the same, the Juvenile Justice Board convicted the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years imprisonment to be detained in Juvenile Special Home at Chengalpet, by its order dated 25.11.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused filed the revision, in which, the Registry raised the question when appeal is maintainable under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act 2015, how the revision is maintainable.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though appeal is maintainable, the petitioner is now challenging the non-following of the procedure required under law and not providing free legal aid to the petitioner/accused person. Free legal aid in Criminal Trial is a fundamental right of an indigent accused person. The Juvenile Board only on accepting the plea of guilt, convicted the accused, which is unjust and illegal. Hence, Criminal Revision is maintainable and pleaded to take on file a criminal revision.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records carefully.
5. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the respondent police registered the case as against the petitioner in Crime No.508 of 2022 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and filed charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, Salem and the same has been taken on file as J.C.No.100 of 2022.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 19.07.2022, at about 11.45 p.m., the petitioner had stolen the defacto complainant's KTM Duke two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 30 CZ 9570. When the petitioner/accused was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and questioning about the charge, he admitted his guilt. The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, by his order dated 25.11.2022, convicted the petitioner/accused, after considering the previous cases of the petitioner in Cr.No.746 of 2022 of Peelamedu Police Station ( U/s.379 IPC) , Cr.No.743 of 2022 of Peelamedu Police Station (u/s.379 IPC), Crime No.881 of 2021 of Peelamedu Police Station (U/s.379 of IPC), Cr.No.385 of 2022 of Virudhachalam Police Station ( U/s. 20(b)(ii) (A) 8(c) of NDPS Act) and Cr.No.7831 of 2021 of Shankar Nagar Police Station (U/s.379 IPC), and sentenced him to undergo 3 years imprisonment to be detained at Juvenile justice Board at Chengalpet and also directed to provide education to him.
7. I have gone through the provision under sections 101 and 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It runs as follows:
“101. Appeals – Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the Committee or the Board under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Children's Court, except for decisions by the Committee related to Foster Care and Sponsorship After care for which the appeal shall lie with the District Magistrate.
Provided that the Court of Sessions, or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 401 of Cr.P.C. in determining....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive revisional powers vested with the High Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, the lack of jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge or Childr....
Point of law: Thus it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only :-(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into as....
The main legal point established is that the bail application of a juvenile accused of a heinous offence should be governed by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the court has the auth....
Section 12 of Act provides that a juvenile who is brought before Board shall be released on bail.
The court reinforced that the Juvenile Justice Act prioritizes the best interests of the child, allowing bail unless significant risks are present.
Point of law: According to provisions of Section 18(1) (g) of the Act of 2015, the juvenile in conflict with law can be sent to special home for such a period not exceeding three years. In the presen....
The gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a delinquent juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. The nature of the crime, conduct of the acc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
