Jeevan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

- 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. - it is well settled position of law that even after the conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of fir and submission of report under section 173(2), cr......substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel. it is well settled position of law that even after the conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of fir and submission of report under section 173(2), cr. p.c., the officer in-charge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to same incident, he can make further investigation with the leave of the court and forward further evidence, if any collected, further report, or report under section 178(8), cr. p.c. i am fortified in my view by the decision reported in 2001 scc (cri) 1048 : (2001 cri lj 3329). thus, to my mind, the learned magistrate has committed gross illegality in returning the final report to the sho, police station, surajpole on his just asking for production before the superintendent, of police. it is not the rule that once a police report has been forwarded, the matter cannot be further investigated and police can ask for return of the final report. the police can make an appropriate application and seek permission for further investigation, which may include directions with regard to investigation by the higher police authorities. the final report once submitted in the court cannot be returned on an application submitted by the s.h.o. in a cavalier manner, as has been done in the instant case.4. consequently, the petition is allowed. the order of the learned cjm, udaipur dated 15-7-2000 returning the final report to the sho, police station, surajpole is quashed and set aside. the learned magistrate will proceed with the consideration of the final report submitted by the police. in case, an appropriate application is made by the police, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. the record be returned forthwith.