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

1997 Supreme(MP) 532

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. S. JHA
RINKOO KHATRI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION 114 Of 1997
Decided On : 08/27/1997

Advocates Appeared:
ARUN MISHRA, B.D.Jain

The Sessions Judge has the power to determine the age of the petitioner before referring the case to the Juvenile Court.

Headnote:

Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the procedure in appeal. Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides for the referral of cases to the Juvenile Court by the Magistrate. Section 32 of the Act empowers the Juvenile Court to determine the age. Section 8 of the Act specifies the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate not empowered under the Act. The court analyzed these provisions to determine the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge in determining the age of the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, claiming to be a juvenile. The petitioner argued that the case should be sent to the Juvenile Court based on the provisions of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner also referred to Section 7 and Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which empower the Juvenile Court to determine the age. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to determine the age and that the electoral roll should not be relied upon. The question before the court was whether the Sessions Judge had the power to determine the age of the petitioner before referring the case to the Juvenile Court. The court analyzed Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act and held that the Sessions Judge had the power to conduct the enquiry to determine whether the petitioner is a juvenile. The court also found that the electoral roll can be relied upon to establish that the petitioner is not a juvenile. The revision was dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge in determining the age of the petitioner. The court held that the Sessions Judge has the power to conduct the enquiry and form an opinion on whether the petitioner is a juvenile. The court also found that the electoral roll can be relied upon to establish the age of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The Sessions Judge has the power to determine the age of the petitioner before referring the case to the Juvenile Court. The electoral roll can be relied upon to establish the age of the petitioner.

Result: The revision has no force and is dismissed summarily. The record of the trial Court is to be sent back immediately.

S. S. JHA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this revision against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, holding that the petitioner is not juvenile.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that he moved an application before the Sessions Court that the petitioner on the date of offence was below the age of 16 years, therefore, he cannot be tried before the Sessions Judge, and prayed that his case be sent to Juvenile Court. This application was moved under the provisions of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 3 ) THE provision mentioned in the application is totally misconceived, as the provision of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the procedure in appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that once he has submitted the mark-sheet and other documents, the Magistrate trying the case has no jurisdiction but to remit the case to Juvenile Court for enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Judge has no power to hold the enquiry to determine the age of the petitioner. This power is only with the Juvenile Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provision of Section 7 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and submitted that under this provision the Magistrate is found to refer the case before the Juvenile Court. He further submitted that under the provision of Section 32 of the Act the Juvenile Court has power to determine the age.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that from the entire material on record and the certificates produced by him, the learned Judge had erred in holding that the petitioner is above the age of 18 years. He further submitted that the electoral roll prepared under the provisions of Representations of the People Act has wrongly been relied by learned Sessions Judge in holding that the age of the petitioner was above 18 years on the date of offence.

( 6 ) THE question which needs to be determined in this revision is whether the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to determine the age of the petitioner before referring the case to Juvenile Court.

( 7 ) SECTION 8 of the Act is reproduced below :-"8. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate not empowered under the Act.- (1) When any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board or a Juvenile Court under this Act is of opinion that a person brought before him under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile, he shall record such opinion and forward the juvenile and the record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding. (2) The competent authority to which the proceeding is forwarded under sub-section (1) shall hold the inquiry as if the juvenile had originally been brought before it. "from bare reading of Section 8, it relates to procedure to be followed by Magistrate not empowered under the Act. By going through the Act, unless Magistrate opines that accused before him is juvenile, then only he (sic) forward the juvenile and therecord of the proceedings to the competent authority. Learned Counsel's contention that power of enquiry is vested under Section 32 of the Act is misconceived. There is a difference between Section 8 and Section 32 of the Act. Section 8 relates to a juvenile produced before a Magistrate not empowered to act under the Act and procedure to be adopted by such Magistrate. Section 32 relates to a procedure when a juvenile is produced before the Juvenile Court. The Juvenile Court enters into the enquiry in respect of age when juvenile is produced in the Court. In the present case, the juvenile was not produced before the Juvenile Court. The petitioner is being tried before the Sessions Judge. When the petitioner moves an application that his case be forwarded to Juvenile Court, the Sessions Court cannot act as a post-office and on receiving application and transfer the case to Juvenile







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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