.....period.;revsion partly 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. .....
learned counsel for the
petitioner does not press the
revision petition on merits but prays for a
lenient view being taken in view of the
circumstances that a period of about nine years has
lapsed since the
alleged offence and the
petitioner is a young man. in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case the
learned public prosecutor does not oppose this
prayer.3. the
petitioner has remained in
custody for a period of about 36 days so far. in this view of the matter, it is not
considered proper to send him behind the bars now after the lapse of such a long period during which he had undergone rigours of a long
protracted trial.4.
consequently, the
revision petition is partly
allowed, the
substantive sentence of four month's
rigorous imprisonment of the
petitioner is
reduced to the period he had remained in
custody so far. the
sentence of fine of rs. 1000/- and in
default to undergo three months'
rigorous imprisonment is
however maintained. the
petitioner has already
deposited the amount of fine. he is on bail. his
bail bonds standd is
charged.
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.
1. Petitioner Shiv Ram alias Sawa Was tried for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and a fine of Rs. 100/-in default to under go three months rigorous imprisonment, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur by his judgment dated August 2, 1976. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur by the judgment dated March 31, 1978 reduced the substantive sentence to four months' rigorous mprisonment, but upheld the sentence of fine.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision petition on merits but prays for a lenient view being taken in view of the circumstances that a period of about nine years has lapsed since the alleged offence and the petitioner is a young man. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Public prosecutor does not oppose this prayer.
3. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about 36 days so far. In this view of the matter, it is not considered proper to send him behind the bars now after the lapse of such a long period during which he had undergone rigours of a long protracted trial.
4. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed, the substantive sentence of four month's rigorous imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period he had remained in custody so far. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment is however maintained. The petitioner has already deposited the amount of fine. He is on bail. His bail bonds standd ischarged.