Babu Lal Vs. State

- 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. .....and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. thus render justice.' 3. the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the ndps act, 1985. 4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for last about 14 months and only statements of two prosecution witnesses have been recorded so far. therefore, trial against the petitioner itself may be quashed and he should be released forthwith. 5. the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that bail application of the petitioner was considered by the sessions judge and also by this court under section 439 cr.p.c. and the same were rejected. however, this fact about filing and rejection of bail applications has not been mentioned in this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. 6. after considering all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, i am of the opinion that this petition is a frivolous petition and no such prayer can be allowed under section 482 cr.p.c. on the ground of pendency of trial for 14 months. the object of section 482 cr.p.c. is to prevent the abuse of process of law but filing of this petition itself is an abuse of process of law. i do not see any illegality or irregularity or abuse of process of law in the proceedings of the trial court so as to invoke powers under section 482 cr.p.c. 7. in view of the above, i do not find any reason or ground to allow the prayer of petitioner under section 482 cr.p.c. the same is accordingly dismissed.