9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.12.1998 the appellant was alleged as one of the conspirators to have caused the death of the deceased by poisoning. On the basis of the FIR the appellant was arrested and produced before the C.J.M. Chas on 22.11.1999. On production, the learned CJM assessed the age of the appellant to be around 18 years old. On 28.2.2000, a petition was filed on behalf of the appellant claiming that he was a minor on the date of occurrence i.e. 31.12.1998, whereupon the learned CJM transmitted the case to the Juvenile Court. The appellant was produced in the Juvenile Court on 3.3.2000. On his production the Juvenile Court assessed the age of the appellant by appearance to be between 15 and 16 years and directed the Civil Surgeon to constitute a Medical Board for the purpose of assessing the age of the appellant by scientific examination and submit a report. No such Medical Board was constituted. Thus, the learned ACJM asked the parties to adduce evidence and on examining the school leaving certificate and mark sheet of Central Board of Secondary Education came to the finding that the appellant was below 16 years of age as on 31.12.1998 taking the date of birth of the appellant as 18.12.1983 rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us. The dual questions which require authoritative decision are: (a) Whether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for determining the age of the alleged offender as Juvenile offender or the date when he is produced in the Court/competent authority. (b) Whether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in the case a proceeding initiated under 1986 Act and pending when the Act of 2000 was enforced with effect from 1.4.2001. Question (a) Whether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for determining the age of the alleged offender as Juvenile offender or the date when he is produced in the Court/competent authority. Mr. Mishra submits that the decision in Umesh Chandra (supra) rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the correct law and a two-Judge Bench decision in Arnit Das (supra) cannot be said to have laid down a correct law. Mr. Mishra also submits that the decision in Arnit Das (supra) has not noticed the decision of a three-Judge Bench in Umesh Chandra (supra). Mr. Mishra also referred to the aims and objects of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) and submits that the whole object is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its full range in keeping with the developmental needs of the child found in any situation of social maladjustment; (iii) to spell out the machinery and infrastructure required for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of various categories of children coming within the purview of the juvenile justice system. This is proposed to be achieved by establishing observation homes, juvenile homes for neglected juveniles and special homes for delinquent juveniles; (iv) to establish norms and standards for the administration of juvenile justice in terms of investigation and prosecution, adjudication and disposition, and care, treatment and rehabilitation; (v) to develop appropriate linkages and co-ordination between the formal system of juvenile justice and voluntary agencies engaged in the welfare of neglected or socially maladjusted children and to specifically define the areas of their responsibilities and roles; (vi) to constitute special offences in relation to juveniles and provide for punishments therefor; (vii) to bring the operation of the juvenile justice system in the country in conformity with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rule fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile, and the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person. Mr. Sharan stressed heavily on the word is used in two places of the Section and contended that the word is suggests that for determination of age of juvenile the date of production would be reckoning date as the inquiry with regard to his age begins from the date he is brought before the Court and not otherwise. We are unable to countenance this submission. We have already noticed that the definition of delinquent juvenile means a juvenile who has been found to have committed an offence. The word is employed in Section 32 is referable to a juvenile who is said to have committed an offence on the date of the occurrence. We may also notice the provisions of Section 18 of the 1986 Act. Section 18 provides for bail and custody of juveniles. It reads:- 18. BAIL AND CUSTODY OF JUVENILES.(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Court which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that the juvenile has committed the offence. The legislative intendment underlying Sections 3 and 26 read with the preamble, aims and objects of the Act is clearly discernible. A conjoint reading of the Sections, preamble, aims and objects of the Act leaves no matter of doubt that the legislature intended to provide protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication thereof. Interpretation of Sections 3 and 26 of the Act are no more res-integra. Sections 3 and 26 of the 1986 Act as quoted above are in pari materia with Sections 3 and 26 of the Rajasthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. Maharukh Adenwala, counsel for the intervener and Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned ASG for the State of Jharkhand. In fact counsel for the intervener has adopted the arguments of Mr. Mishra. Mr. Mishra would submit that any proceeding against any person pending under the 1986 Act would be covered by the 2000 Act and would extend the benefit of being a juvenile as defined under the 2000 Act, if at the time of the commission of the offence he was below the age of 18 years. To buttress his point counsel heavily relied upon the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Act and Rules 61 and 62 framed by the Central Government. Per contra Mr. Sharan counsel for the respondent would contend that the 1986 Act has been repealed by Section 69(1) of the 2000 Act and, therefore, the provisions of 2000 Act would not be extended to a case/inquiry initiated and pending under the provisions of 1986 Act, the Act of 2000 being not retrospective. To answer the aforesaid question, it would be necessary to make a quick survey of the definitions and Sections of 2000 Act, relevant for the purpose of disposing of the case at hand. As stated hereinabove the whole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years; Section 2(k) of 2000 Act defines juvenile as under:- 2(k) juvenile or child means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age; Thus, the striking distinction between the 1986 Act and 2000 Act is that under the 1986 Act a juvenile means a male juvenile who has not attained the age of 16 years and a female juvenile who has not attained the age of 18 years. In the 2000 Act no distinction has been drawn between the male and female juvenile. The limit of 16 years in 1986 Act has been raised to 18 years in 2000 Act. In the 2000 Act wherever the word juvenile appears the same will now have to be taken to mean a person who has not completed 18 years of age. Section 3 provides as follows: 3. Continuation of inquiry in respect of juvenile who has ceased to be a juvenile.- Where an inquiry has been initiated against a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection and during the course of such inquiry the juvenile or the child ceases to be such, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri materia with Section 21 of the 1986 Act. Thus, such an interpretation does not offend Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and the juvenile is not subjected to any penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted on him under the 1986 Act. Mr. Mishra placed reliance on Rules 61 and 62 framed by the Central Government. According to him, particularly Rule 62 of the Rules covers the pending cases and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 62. Rule 62 reads:- 62. Pending Cases.-(1) No juvenile in conflict with law or a child shall be denied the benefits of the Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) All pending cases which have not received a finality shall be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) Any juvenile in conflict with law, or a child shall be given the benefits under sub-rule (1), and it is hereby clarified that such benefits shall be made available not only to those accused who was juvenile or a child at the time of commission of an offence, but also to those who ceased to be a juvenile or a child during the pendency of any enquiry or trial. (4) While computing the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
