Kumari Rakhi Bansal Vs. State of Raj. and ors. - Court Judgment

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. 1. the appellant has sought transfer from jawahar lal nehru medical college, ajmer to sms medical college, jaipur. it is alleged that the appellant is suffering from chronic, calcific pancreatitis disease for which treatment is available only in sms medical college, jaipur and nowhere else in rajasthan. so far as this aspect is concerned there is some controversy because the concerned doctor ramesh rooprai, who is unit head & associate professor in sms medical college, jaipur, has given 2 certificates. in latter certificate he has stated that this treatment is available only in sms medical college, jaipur, whereas in the earlier certificate he has not said so.2. be that as it may, our attention has been drawn to the relevant regulations framed by the medical council of india under the indian medical council act, 1956.3. according to regulation 6 of regulations on graduate medical education, 1997 dealing with migration, migration is not possible during clinical course of study on any ground.4. it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that the appellant has already completed phase-i of the mbbs course and she is in phase-ii.5. according to the medical council regulations, clinical subjects start with phase-ii. therefore, it appears that the appellant is already pursuing the clinical courses and as per the regulations referred to earlier, migration is not at all permissible on any ground during clinical courses. there is no dispute that these regulations are binding. it is also on record that the medical council of india has refused permission regarding transfer of the appellant from jln medical college, ajmer to sms medical college, jaipur. in these circumstances, we are unable to grant any relief to the appellant.