Sita Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. - 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. shiv kumar sharma, j.1. it appears that after filing of the final report, the learned additional chief judicial magistrate sri madhopur district sikar did not accept the final report and has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 504 and 120b ipc against the petitioners. the petitioners have now approached this court under section 482 cr.p.c.2. the only contention that has been advanced before me is that on filing the protest petition it was incumbent upon the judicial magistrate to have recorded the statements under sections 200 and 202 cr.p.c. and in absence of the statements no cognizance could have been taken. i find no merit in this submission in view of the ratio indicated in m/s. india carat pvt. ltd. v. state of karnataka and anr. (1), wherein their lordships of supreme court indicated that the magistrate can take cognizance of the offence even if police report is to the effect that no case was made out and it was not necessary for the magistrate to follow the procedure laid down in sections 200 and 202 cr.p.c. in the instant case it appears that on perusal of investigation report the learned magistrate came to the view that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners.3. for the reasons, i do not find any merit in the misc. petition, it stands dismissed. the petitioners are directed to appear before the learned additional chief judicial magistrate sri madhopur district sikar on march 1, 2004.