Bodu Lal Vs. 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. - 3. the first point pressed in this revision on behalf of the accused-applicant is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the article recovered was 'opium' within the meaning of section 3 of the act. opium in the form of coagulated juice of poppy is so well known in this country being widely used for medicinal & other purposes that anyone can identify it and it is unnecessary to call in an expert to establish its identity. the two courts below have clearly come to the concurrent findings on independent evidence and otherwise that the opium in question was recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant......this country being widely used for medicinal & other purposes that anyone can identify it and it is unnecessary to call in an expert to establish its identity. if an excise inspector says that certain article is crude opium his testimony cannot be looked upon as merely an opinion of an expert and is entitled to weight as evidence even if no reasons are given for the opinion.4. it has then been argued on behalf of the accused-applicant that the evidence on the record of the trial court does not justify the inference that the opium in question was recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant. the two courts below have clearly come to the concurrent findings on independent evidence and otherwise that the opium in question was recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant. this is a finding of fact, and could not ordinarily be interfered with by me on the revisional side.5. the accused-applicant has been sentenced to undergo three months' r.i. and to pay a fine of rs. 200/- or in default of such, to undergo further r.i. for one month. the sentences, in view of the large quantity of the opium recovered, certainly do not appear to err on the side of severity.6. the application in revision accordingly is dismissed the accused-applicant is on bail, and he should be taken in custody forthwith and made to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence or sentences under intimation to the court.