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

1989 Supreme(All) 396

RAJESHWAR SINGH
SHEO MANGAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
IMTIAZ MURTAZA

RAJESHWAR SINGH, J, J.

( 1 ) A case under Section 302, I. P. C. has been committed to the Court of Session. There some accused raised objection that they were juveniles under. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and they should not be tried by Sessions Court. The Sessions Court rejected that application. So they have approached this Court through an application in revision.

( 2 ) THE definition of juvenile is given in Sec. 2 (h) of the Act. According to this definition juvenile means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. The definition does not say that this age is to be seen on the date of occurrence. Sec. 20 deals with inquiry by Juvenile Court against juvenile offenders. It says that where a juvenile accused of an offence appears or is produced before a Juvenile Court, it shall make an inquiry. Thus it appears that a Juvenile Court proceeds when a juvenile appears or is produced before it. It means that the person produced should be juvenile on the date when he is produced before the Juvenile Court. However, Sec. 3 provides that where an inquiry has been initiated against a juvenile and during the course of such inquiry the















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top