AlladIn Vs. State of Rajasthan

.....cases of this type.;when he is said to have left this profession and belongs to the draught striken area where it would be difficult for the family members of the petitioner to feed themselves in case he is sent behind the bars now, coupled with the fact that a period of more than six years has lapsed since the date of the incident, i am inclined to hold that the ends of justice would meet if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment he had suffered so far. in view of the financial condition of the petitioner, as narrated above, by his learned counsel, it is also considered proper to reduce the amount of fine imposed on him.;revision 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 also prayed for a lenient view regarding the sentence of fine on the ground that the financial condition of the petitioner is very poor......jurisdiction of this court on sentence only.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to february 1976 and the petitioner had remained in custody for a period of 22 days. learned counsel submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, lapse of period since the commission of the crime and the fact that the petitioner is not pursuing the profession of sale of milk now and belongs to jaisalmer which is a draught striken area, a lenient view may be taken and he may not be sent behind the bars again. learned counsel also prayed for a lenient view regarding the sentence of fine on the ground that the financial condition of the petitioner is very poor. the learned public prosecutor, in view of this circumstances of the case, does not contest this prayer.3. the case relates to feburary 1976 prior to the amendment of the act, relating to the mandatory provision of passing minimum sentence in cases of this type. prior to the amendment it was permissible to the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term lass than six months and a fine of lass than rs. 1000/- in cases falling under sub-clause (a) of sun-section (1) of section 16 of the act. the petitioner has undergone a sentence of 22 days so far. in my opinion; when he is said to have left this profession and belongs to the draught striken area where it would be difficult for the family members of the petitioner to feed themselves in case he is sent behind the bars now, coupled with the fact that a period of more than six years has lapsed since the date of the incident, i am inclined to hold that the ends of justice would meet if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment he had suffered so far. in view of the financial candition of the petitioner, as narrated above, by his learned counsel, it is also considered proper to reduce the amount of fine imposed on him.4. consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed, the couviction of the.....