Manmal Saraogi Vs. the State

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - crown 1938 amlj 40. the later set of the rulings clearly lays down that in such cases a court would not be justified in raising presumptions as could have been raised in case a valid warrant had been issued. on the evidence of the parties otherwise the trial court as well as the appellate court have clearly come to the findings that the shop of the accused-applicant was a 'common gaming-house' and that he received bets.atma charan, c.j.1. heard the parties.2. the accused-applicant stands convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the public gambling act and sentenced in the aggregate to pay a fine of rs. 200/-.3. the only point pressed at the time of arguments in revision is that as the trial court itself had issued the search warrant the accused-applicant has been materially prejudiced and, as such, he should be acquitted. the counsel for the accused-applicant in this connection has drawn my attention to the rulings as cited in rajaram v. emperor air 1924 lah 247 and syam behari v. emperor air 1934 all 987 (2). the government advocate, on the other hand, relies on the rulings as cited in 1935 amlj 59 and nemichand v. crown 1938 amlj 40. the later set of the rulings clearly lays down that in such cases a court would not be justified in raising presumptions as could have been raised in case a valid warrant had been issued. on the evidence of the parties otherwise the trial court as well as the appellate court have clearly come to the findings that the shop of the accused-applicant was a 'common gaming-house' and that he received bets. the accused-applicant, in the circumstances, has rightly been convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the public gambling act.4. the accused-applicant has been sentenced in the aggregate to pay a fine of rs. 200. the sentence appears to err on the side of severity and, in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentences in the aggregate are reduced only to a fine of rs. 50/- or in default of such to one month's simple imprisonment.5. the application in revision accordingly is partly allowed, the conviction of the accused-applicant is maintained and his sentences in the aggregate are reduced only to a fine of rs. 50 or in default of such one month's s.i.: the application in revision otherwise is dismissed.