9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that term under clause (d) of section 2 of the Act. 2. Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that in view of Section 5 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code ), the appellant would get the benefit of the Act; while on the other hand, Mr. Bhagat appearing for the State, relying on section 27 of the Code submitted that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life would not be triable under the Act. 3. There is a decision of this Court on the point in the case of Rohtas v. State of Haryana reported in [1979] 4 S.C.C. 229, that held the trial of a child under the provisions of the Act was not barred. In that case, however, it appears, section 27 of the Code was not brought to the notice of the Court. In that view of the matter, the Bench consisting of two members including one of us (Baharul Islam, J.) before whom this appeal came up for hearing referred it to a larger Bench, in order to avoid possible conflict of decisions. This is how this appeal came up for hearinbefore this Bench consisting of three members. 4. Mr. Malhotra submits that section 5 of the Code leaves special and local laws unaffected b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed of any non-bailable offence, notwithstanding anything contained in the old Code or in any other law for the time being in force be released on bail with or without surety unless such release defeats the purpose of the Act. Section 19 provides that the children s court shall hold an inquiry against the child charged with an offence in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Act and may, subject to the provisions of the Act, make such order in relation to the child as it deems fit. Section 20, inter alia, provides that where a children s court is satisfied on inquiry that a child has committed an offence, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the children s court may, if it thinks fit,- (a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition; (b) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian, or other fit person on his executing a bond with or without surety as the court may require for the good behaviour and wellbeing of the child for any period not exceeding three years; and (c) make an order directing the child to be sent to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into force on April 1, 1974. If there be any conflict between any provisions of the Act and the Code, in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution, the provision of the Act repugnant to any provision of the Code will be void to the extent of repugnancy. 8. It was not the contention of Mr. Bhagat appearing for the State that the Act was bad for lack of legislative competence of the State Assembly or for any other reason. The sheet-anchor of his submission was section 27 of the Code of 1973. 9. Let us now set out the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with which we are directly concerned. Section 4 reads: (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 reads: Nothing contained in this Code shall, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r imprisonment for life. 10. Criminal Procedure appears in Item 2 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. One of the circumstances under which repugnancy between the law made by the State and the law made by the Parliament may result is whether the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable. In the A case in hand as we have shown that the relevant provisions of the Code and the Act can co-exist. Their spheres of operation are different. 11. Mr. Bhagat in support of his contention has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1978 Criminal Law Journal 585. The Full Bench of three judges considered the jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (15 of 1970) to try a juvenile offender for offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There was a difference of opinion. The view of the majority was that the juvenile courts constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam has exclusive jurisdiction to try a delinquent child (a person under 16 years of age for all offences except those punishable with death or impris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
