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

1979 Supreme(All) 130

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.N. BAKSHI, J.
State Of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Phoolmati – Respondent
Appeal No : Cr. Ref. No. 54 of 1976
Decided on : Mar 02, 1979

The U. P. Children Act, 1952, provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of Juvenile Courts or empowered courts to try child offenders, irrespective of the quantum of punishment prescribed for the offence under the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

JUVENILE JUSTICE - U. P. CHILDREN ACT, 1952 - SECTION 60, 61, 75 - JURISDICTION OF JUVENILE COURTS - EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO TRY CHILD OFFENDERS - CHILD DEFINED AS PERSON UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE - OFFENCES COMMITTED BY CHILD TRIABLE BY JUVENILE COURT OR EMPOWERED COURT - JURISDICTION NOT DEPENDENT ON QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT - PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CHILD CONTINUED EVEN AFTER ATTAINING 16 YEARS OF AGE - SPECIAL PROCEDURE UNDER CHILDREN ACT PREVAILS OVER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.

Fact of the Case:

The accused, a 15-year-old girl, was charged with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The issue arose as to which court had jurisdiction to try the case, considering the provisions of the U. P. Children Act, 1952.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accused, being a child within the meaning of the U. P. Children Act, 1952, was triable by a Juvenile Court or a court empowered under the Act. The jurisdiction of such courts was exclusive and not dependent on the quantum of punishment prescribed for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings against the accused could continue even after she attained the age of 16 years.

Issues: 1. Whether the accused, being a child, was triable by a Juvenile Court or a court empowered under the U. P. Children Act, 1952? 2. Whether the jurisdiction of such courts was exclusive and not dependent on the quantum of punishment prescribed for the offence under the Indian Penal Code? 3. Whether the proceedings against the accused could continue even after she attained the age of 16 years?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(4), 60, 61, and 75 of the U. P. Children Act, 1952, and held that a child, defined as a person under 16 years of age, was triable by a Juvenile Court or a court empowered under the Act. 2. The court held that the jurisdiction of such courts was exclusive and not dependent on the quantum of punishment prescribed for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. 3. The court held that the proceedings against the accused could continue even after she attained the age of 16 years, as per the provisions of Section 75 of the Act.

Final Decision: The court directed that the case be transferred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, for disposal in accordance with the U. P. Children Act, 1952.

JUDGMENT

1. P.N. Bakshi, J. Smt. Phoolmati was charged for an offence under S. 302 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of her husband at 11 p. m. on 2nd November, 1974. She pleaded not guilty. Witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. In her statement, the accused gave out that she was 15 years of age. 14-6-76 was fixed for defence evidence. The State Counsel moved an application in court for making inquiries with regard to her age with the intention of scrutinizing whether U. P. Children Act, 1952, would be applicable to the present case. The statements of Dr.B. K. Sharma, CMO and Dr. R. Prakash Radiologist, who examined the accused, were recorded. In view of the medical evidence, it appears to be clear that the age of the accused on the date of her examination i.e. 16-7-76 was about 17 years. There can be a difference of about 5-6 months on either side. The occurrence had taken place on 2-11-74, on which date the accused was arrested. Thus, according to the evidence on the record the age of the accused on the date of her arrest would be somewhere about 15 years.

2. UNDER the U. P. Children Act, 1952, Sec. 2 Clause (4), Child means "a person under the age of 16 years." Thus there can be no doubt that on the date of her arrest, the accused was a child within the meaning of the Act. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur for the purpose of eliciting directions of this court regarding the forum of trial of the accused.

Section 60 of the Children Act, 1952 deals with the establishment of Juvenile Courts for the trial of children under the provisions of the Act. It runs as follows :-

"60. (1) The State Govt. may establish a Juvenile Court for any local area in a district and appoint a judge of such court. (2) For purposes of this Act, a court means the Juvenile Court established by the State Govt. for any area, and includes a Court of Sessions, and a Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered to exercise the powers of a court under this Act."

3. Section 61 of the Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to Juvenile Courts or courts empowered under S. 60 of the Act to try such offenders. It runs as follows :

"(1) Where a Juvenile Court has been established for any local area, such court shall deal all cases in which a child is charged with the infringement of law and shall deal with and dispose of all other proceedings under this Act, but shall not have power to try any case in which an adult is charged with an offence under Chapter III; and (2) Where a Juvenile Court has not been established for any local area, no court other than courts empowered under S. 60 to exercise the powers of a Juvenile Court shall have power to deal with any case in which a child is charged with the infringement of law or to deal with or dispose off any other proceedings under this Act."

The above section clearly contemplates of two contingencies; (1) where a Juvenile Court has been established for any local area and (2) where a Juvenile Court has not been so established. In the first case the Juvenile Court alone is vested with the jurisdiction to deal with offenders and to dispose off all other proceedings under the Children Act. In the second case, the Sessions Judge or the Magistrate specially empowered to exercise the powers of the court with respect to any particular area where an offence is committed has to deal with the offenders covered by the Children Act.

4. The jurisdiction of the courts, mentioned above to try juvenile offenders is not dependant upon the quantum of punishment, which may be prescribed under the Indian Penal Code for any particular offence. Whether an offence is punishable with death or transportation for life or whether it is punishable with a few years rigorous imprisonment and fine under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, is not at all material for determining the jurisdiction of the courts authorised to try offenders under the Childrens Act. All types of offences are covered and tri







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