| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/758780 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-14-1993 |
| Case Number | Cr. Misc. Petition No. 412/92 |
| Judge | Milap Chandra, J. |
| Reported in | 1993CriLJ2301 |
| Acts | Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 256, 256(1) and 482 |
| Appellant | Ugam Raj |
| Respondent | State |
| Appellant Advocate | P. R. Chaudhary, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | H.R. Panwar, P.P. |
| Disposition | Petition dismissed |
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.
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.