Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Khivsingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Khivsingh and ors. vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 28, 1978
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757919

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Cr. Revision No. 88/1978
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Joint trial--Two distinct offences committed by sets of accused--Held, these be tried separately.;Revision allowed - 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 ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khivsingh and ors.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1978WLN(UC)316

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - joint trial--two distinct offences committed by sets of accused--held, these be tried separately.;revision allowed - 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. c. honniah, c.j.1. in this revision, petition, from the facts stated, it is clear that two distinct offences were committed by sets of accused persons. learned public prosecutor concedes that there should be two trials. accordingly, i direct that two cases be tried separately. the revision is accordingly allowed.

Full Judgment

C. Honniah, C.J.

1. In this revision, petition, from the facts stated, it is clear that two distinct offences were committed by sets of accused persons. Learned Public Prosecutor concedes that there should be two trials. Accordingly, I direct that two cases be tried separately. The revision is accordingly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial