Bhawani Singh Vs. State

Bhawani Singh vs State

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 08, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/756219

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/756219
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Harbans Lal, J.
Decided On: Mar 08, 2006
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 608 of 2005
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- 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 oc...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Sections 20; Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Sections 26; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397 and 401

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhawani Singh

Advocate Shailendra Balwada, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Ashwani Sharma, Public Prosecutor and; Gajanand Yadav, Adv. for Respondent No. 2

Legal References

Acts: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Sections 20; Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Sections 26; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397 and 401
Cases Referred: Arnit Das v. State of Bihar
Reported In: RLW2006(2)Raj1670; 2006(2)WLC752

Excerpt

- 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. i have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned pp and the learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2. 4. the law in point seems to be now well settled in view of the pronouncement of the hon'ble apex court in the case of pratap singh v. -20. special provision in respect of pending cases -notwithstanding anything contained 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 board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions..........khetri distt. jhunjhunu in sessions case no. 31/2002 whereby the application moved by the petitioner for transferring the case of accused kapinder singh to the juvenile justice board for trial has been dismissed.2. briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that a criminal case came to be registered on the basis of first information report lodged by bhawani singh. after investigation charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. the trial court inquired into the age of kapinder singh and recorded a finding that his age was 17 years 10 months and 12 days on the date of occurrence. the juvenile justice (care & protection of children) act, 2000 (here-in-after in short 'the act of 2000') came into force on 1.4.2001. obviously, the act of 2000 was in force when the occurrence of this case took place. still, the learned court below declined to send the case to the juvenile justice board observing that his case would be remitted to the board only if he is found guilty in view of the provisions of section 20 of the act of 2000. aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has preferred this revision petition.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned pp and the learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2.4. the law in point seems to be now well settled in view of the pronouncement of the hon'ble apex court in the case of pratap singh v. state of jharkhand and anr. 2005(l) supreme 775 wherein it has been authoritatively held that the date of reckoning of the age of a juvenile is the date of the offence and not the date of his production appearance before the court, the hon'ble apex court has approved the law laid down in the case of umesh chandra v. state of rajasthan : [1982]3scr583 and has over-ruled the law laid down in the case of arnit das v. state of bihar : 2000 crilj2971 by a majority of 4:1. the hon'ble apex court has further dealt with the provisions.....

Full Judgment

Harbans Lal, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of the order dated 27.5.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 31/2002 whereby the application moved by the petitioner for transferring the case of accused Kapinder Singh to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that a criminal case came to be registered on the basis of first information report lodged by Bhawani Singh. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Trial Court inquired into the age of Kapinder Singh and recorded a finding that his age was 17 years 10 months and 12 days on the date of occurrence. The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after in short 'the Act of 2000') came into force on 1.4.2001. Obviously, the Act of 2000 was in force when the occurrence of this case took place. Still, the learned court below declined to send the case to the Juvenile Justice Board observing that his case would be remitted to the Board only if he is found guilty in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has preferred this revision petition.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as learned PP and the learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.

4. The law in point seems to be now well settled in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2005(l) Supreme 775 wherein it has been authoritatively held that the date of reckoning of the age of a juvenile is the date of the offence and not the date of his production appearance before the Court, The Hon'ble Apex Court has approved the law laid down in the case of Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan : [1982]3SCR583 and has over-ruled the law laid down in the case of Arnit Das v. State of Bihar : 2000 CriLJ2971 by a majority of 4:1. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further dealt with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 2000 and Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short referred to as 'the Act of 1986) which was in force prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2000. Section 20 refers to cases where a person has ceased to be a juvenile under the Act of 1986 and has not yet crossed the age of 18 years when the offence was committed after the coming into force of the Act of 2000 Section 20 of the Act of 2000 is as under: -

20. Special provision in respect of pending cases - Notwithstanding anything contained 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 Board 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 a juvenile has committed the offence.

5. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is evident that the learned court below has not rightly appreciated the provision. Therefore, the order passed by it is un-sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

6. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 27.5.2005 is set aside and it is directed that the case of non-petitioner No. 2 Kapinder Singh shall be separated and shall be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial in accordance with the provisions of law.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2006 Same Parties Bhawani Singh vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Harbans Lal, J. Acts & Sections Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ...

Criminal