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.

Ugam Raj Vs. State

Ugam Raj vs State

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 14, 1993
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758780

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
Cr. Misc. Petition No. 412/92
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

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 dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 256, 256(1) and 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ugam Raj

Advocate P. R. Chaudhary, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate H.R. Panwar, P.P.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 256, 256(1) and 482
Reported In
1993CriLJ2301

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. ordermilap chandra, j.1. this is a petition under section 482, cr.p.c. against the order of the learned munsif, cum-judicial magistrate, pipar city dated 09-09-92 by which he has refused to dismiss the complaint.2. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was obligatory on the part of the munsif-cum-judicial magistrate to dismiss the complaint on 7-9-92 as on that day the complainant was not present in person.3. in reply, it is contended by the learned public prosecutor that on 7-9-92 the complaint was filed, it was not obligatory for the complainant to appear in person on that day and on the next day i.e., 9-9-92 the complainant was present.4. admittedly, 7-9-92 was not the date fixed for the appearance of the accused as required under section 256(1), cr.p.c. as such the provisions of section 256, cr.p.c. were not attracted on 7-9-92. thus there is no substance in the petition moved under section 482, cr.p.c.5. consequently, the petition moved under section 482, cr.p.c. is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Milap Chandra, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Munsif, cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City dated 09-09-92 by which he has refused to dismiss the complaint.

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was obligatory on the part of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate to dismiss the complaint on 7-9-92 as on that day the complainant was not present in person.

3. In reply, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that on 7-9-92 the complaint was filed, it was not obligatory for the complainant to appear in person on that day and on the next day i.e., 9-9-92 the complainant was present.

4. Admittedly, 7-9-92 was not the date fixed for the appearance of the accused as required under Section 256(1), Cr.P.C. As such the provisions of Section 256, Cr.P.C. were not attracted on 7-9-92. Thus there is no substance in the petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

5. Consequently, the petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial