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

1995 Supreme(Ori) 56

High Court Of Orissa
V. A. Mohta, R. K. Dash
PADMABATI DEI - Appellant
Versus
DISTT.MAGISTRATE.CUTTACK - Respondent
O. J. C.  220  Of  1995
Decided On : 03/15/1995

Advocates Appeared:
Binod Kumar Nanda, S.K.DAS, S.K.PADHI

Headnote:(i) Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Sections 18 & 22 - Act does not apply to a person "detained" under the National Security Act Word "detained" in section 18 of J.J. Act can not be read in isolation of context of whole provision. (Para 3)

       (ii) National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3 - Preventive detention - Juvenile - No reason to restrict operation of the Act only to a major However juvenile detenu have to be segregated from convicts & kept in a separate part of place of detention & subjected to restrictions minimal required only to make detention effective. (Para 5)

       (iii) National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) - Detention on ground that detenu was indulging in theft of instruments, cables, coaxial amplifiers on telephone lines - Challenged on ground that activities had no means with maintenance of public order - Detention can not be said illegal. (Para 8)

       Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

       

V. A. MOHTA, C. J.

( 1 ) CAN a juvenile be detained under the National Security Act (N. S. Act) ?i The above question of some interest and importance calls for an answer in this habeas corpus petition. Arakhit Kalia Das is the detenu. Padmabati Dei, his mother, is the petitioner. Order of detention is dated 2nd May, 1994. Detaining authority is the District Magistrate, Cuttack. Grounds of detention show the age of the detenu as 20 years. Petitioner asserts that he is 15 years of age. As per the grounds of detention, the detenu is an anti-social surviving on the fruits of theft of stolen goods, instruments, cables, co-axial amplifiers on the telephone lines. Due to such activities of the detenu, telephone communication gets disrupted resulting in paralysing the administration. His activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The occurrence was usual. On 27. 3. 1994 at about 2. 00 a. m. there was a theft of one oscillator and three ammplifiers from Repeater Sllltion No. 19 situated by the side of N. H. 5 near village Bandal in the district of Kendrapara. Cost of these materials was near about Rs. 4,00,000/ -. A week before also such thefts had taken place on 21. 3. 1994 and the day following. On 4. 4. 1994, the detenu and his associate were caught red handed by the police party while approaching Govindpur Repeater Station with preparation to commit similar crime. From him, two hackshaw blades, one screw driver and one wrench were recovered. The detenu, during the course of interrogation, admitted to? have committed the above crimes.

( 2 ) THE petitioner asserts that the detenu was a juvenile aged 15 years at the time of his detention and therefore the N. S. Act does not apply to him. Our pointed attention is drawn in this connection to sections 18 and 22 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (J. J. Act ). We reproduce for ready reference these provisions: 18 Bail and custody of juveniles- (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 Juvenile Court, such person shall, not with standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 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 appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral 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 in an observation home or a place of safety in the prescribed manner (but not in a police station or jail) until he can be brought before a Juvenile Court. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Juvenile Court, 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. 22. Order that may not be passed against delinquent juveniles (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no delinquent juvenile shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security: Provided that where a juvenile who has attained the age of fourteen years has committed an offence and the Juvenile Court is satisfied that the offence committed is of so serious a nature or that his conduct and behaviour have been such that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Ju









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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top