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

2000 Supreme(MP) 719

S.C.PANDEY
RAHUL MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sunil Sinha

S. C. PANDEY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is criminal revision under Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (henceforth 'the Act' ). The applicant Rahul Mishra is being charged under Sections 147, 294, 452, 323, 506 Part-II, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 8/2000, Police Station Basantpur, District Sarguja. It appears that there is no dispute between the State and the applicant regarding the age of the applicant. He is less than 16 years of age and, therefore, he is a juvenile and, consequently deemed to be a juvenile offender with the meaning of the Act.

( 2 ) THE applicant was not granted anticipatory bail by this Court. However, he was produced before the Juvenile Court presided over by two Judvenile Magistrates First Class at Ambikapur by order dated 21-6-2000. Both the Magistrates of the Juvenile Court have passed an order sending the applicant to juvenile home.

( 3 ) IN appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 27-6-2000, has confirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Court.

( 4 ) IN this revision, under Section 38 of the Act, it has been urged by learned counsel for the applicant that once a person is held to be a juvenile delinq





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