Judgment:
I.P. Singh, J.
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 14.6.05 passed by the learned 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.T. No. 253 of 2001 by which the was pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner to send his case to the Juvenile Court for the purposes holding an enquiry under Section 33 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 2000 Act).
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Sudha Jha, wife of Diwakar Jha lodged her Fardbeyan on 24.3.2000 before the Officer Incharge of Lakhanpur Police Station in presence of her mother. At that time she was in an injured condition. In her Fardbeyan she alleged that at about 11.45 A.M. on the same day (24.3.2000) while she was returning with her daughter after offering Puja, her co-villager, namely, Amit Kumar Thakur (petitioner) came to her with a knife and questioned her as to why she did marry another person and threatened her that he will not allow her to remain alive. He gave a Chaku (knife) below on her chest, thigh, back as a result of which the informant fell down and raised alarm. The other accused persons also attacked her. On hearing Fulla the co-villagers came there on which the petitioner fled away. The informant was brought to her house in an injured condition where she died. On the basis of this Fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and a case under Sections 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted.
3. The petitioner happens to be a regular student of a school at Madhepur where his date of birth was recorded as 23.8.1983. He passed his Board Examination and was issued certificate showing his date of birth as 23.8.1983. Unfortunately the petitioner who happens to be a Juvenile was made accused in this case and he surrendered on 3.4.2000. Actually as per his matriculation certificate, he submitted that he was aged about 16 years 6 months and, therefore, he prayed to be seat to remand home on the basis of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short 1986 Act). 2000 Act came into force on 1.4.2001. The petitioner filed a petition before the trial court that since he is a Juvenile within the meaning of 2000 Act, an enquiry as envisaged in Section 33 of this Act be held to determine his age and to find put whether on the alleged date of occurrence he was a Juvenile or not. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court holding that on 3.4.2000 he was not a Juvenile as defined in 2000 Act. The petitioner has relied on the case of Pratap Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2005 (1) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 393 according to, which it was held that if on 1.4.2001 (when the 2000 Act had come into force ) if the petitioner is not above the age of 18 years, 2000 Act will apply and as such he will be still a Juvenile withing the meaning of 2000 Act and should be treated as such. In this connection reference to paragraph 35 of this decision has been made. It has, therefore, been prayed that the impugned order be quashed, the petitioner be treated as a Juvenile and necessary procedure as contained in Section 33 as also 2000 Act be followed.
4. On behalf of the opposite party these contentions have been challenged. It has been submitted that since on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner was not a Juvenile within the meaning of 1986 Act the aforesaid Act would not apply to him. As such he was to be tried under the provisions of the Code. On this ground it has been contended that as per the judgment in the case of Pratap Singh (supra) since 1986 Act was not applicable to him the provisions of paragraph 35 of the said judgment would also not apply to him and, therefore, he can not be treated to be a Juvenile.
5. Before coming to discuss the case law on this point I will firstly refer to un-disputed facts. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born on 23.8.1983. It has also not bee disputed that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 23.3.2000. From this it would appear that on the alleged date of occurrence the age of the petitioner was 16 years and 7 months. In the case of Pratap Singh (supra) it has been held in paragraph 35(a) as follows:
(a) The-reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the Court.
From this it would appear that reckoning date for the determination of the age of the petitioner would be 23.3.2000 which is alleged to be the date of occurrence when admittedly he was aged about 16 years and 7 months. On this date 1986 Act was in force. Section 2(b) of this Act defined a Juvenile to be a boy under 16 years of age. As per this definition on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner car not be said to be a Juvenile since as stated above he was aged about 16 years and 7 months on the said date. From this it would appear that 1986 Act will not apply to the petitioner he being not a Juvenile within the meaning of this Act. As such the ordinary criminal law will apply to him. Thus on 1.4.2001when 2000 Act came into force no proceeding under 1986 Act was pending against the present petitioner. What was pending against him was a regular criminal case under the provision of the Code.
6. The next question that will arise for consideration in this connection would be whether the case of the petitioner will be covered under 2000 Act so as to bring him within the definition of Juvenile. It may be mentioned here that as per Section 2(k) of 2000 Act a Juvenile is a person who has not completed 18 years. As notice above this Act had come into force on 1.4.2001 and its provisions are not retrospective.
7. Now coming to the decision in the case of Pratap Singh (supra) its paragraph 35(b) runs as follows:
(b) The 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding in any court/authority initiated under the 1986 Act and is pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001.
8. To make the law as laid down in this paragraph applicable to a case the following conditions are required to be fulfilled, namely:
(i) Any proceeding against the petitioner is pending under 1986 Act on 1.4.2001 in a court of law or before any authority, and
(ii) On 1.4.2001 the person concerned has not completed 18 years of age.
9. In the present case since on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner was already above 16 years of age the provisions of 1986 Act would not be attracted since he could not be treated a Juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(b) of 1986 Act. In this view of the matter it can not he said that on 1.4.2001, when 2000 Act came into force, any proceeding initiated under 1986 Act was pending. From this it would appear that this condition as laid down in paragraph 35(b) of the judgment passed in the case of Pratap Singh (supra) will not apply. This being the position it is clear that on 1.4.2001 when the New Act came into force no proceeding under 1986 Act was pending. Hence the provisions of 2000 Act can not be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. From this paragraph it will also appear that in order to make it applicable the petitioner has to be under 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001. In the present case since the petitioner was born on 23.8.1983 he completed 18 years of age on 23.8.2001. Since 2000 Act came into force on 1.4.2001 obviously on this date the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age. So that second part of paragraph 35(b) of the judgment of the Pratap Singh (supra) will apply to the case of the present petitioner. However, since the first part of this paragraph will not apply to the present petitioner since he being about 16 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence on 23.3.2000 no proceeding would have been initiated against him under 1986 Act. This being the position it can not be said that on 1.4.2001 any proceeding against the petitioner was pending under 1986 Act. From this it would become clear that the first part of this paragraph will not be applicable to the petitioner, he being not a Juvenile on the alleged date of occurrence as per 1986 Act. Hence this part will not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore the second part of this paragraph, namely, he was under the age of 18 years on 1.4.3001 will also not be applicable to the present petitioner and, therefore, it is clear that he will not be covered under 3000 Act and will not be treated to a Juvenile.
11. From the discussions made above it becomes clear that the impugned order is correct am does not call for any interference. I do not find any merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, rejected.