Court : US Supreme Court
Schall v. Martin - 467 U.S. 253 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984) Schall v. Martin No. 82-1248 Argued January 17, 1984 Decided June 4, 1984 467 U.S. 253 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 320.5(3)(b) of the New York Family Court Act authorizes pretrial detention of an accused juvenile delinquent based on a finding that there is a "serious risk" that the juvenile "may before the return date commit an act which if committed by an adult would constitute a crime." Appellees, juveniles who had been detained under 320.5(3)(b), brought a habeas corpus class action in Federal District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that 320.5(3)(b) violates, inter alia, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court struck down the statute as permitting detention without due process and ordered the release of all class members. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, since the v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Reno v. Flores - 507 U.S. 292 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. FLORES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 91-905. Argued October 13, 1992-Decided March 23,1993 Respondents are a class of alien juveniles arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on suspicion of being deportable, and then detained pending deportation hearings pursuant to a regulation, promulgated in 1988 and codified at 8 CFR 242.24, which provides for the release of detained minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians, except in unusual and compelling circumstances. An immigration judge will review the initial deportability and custody determinations upon request by the juvenile. 242.2(d). Pursuant to a consent decree entered earlier in the litigation, juveniles who are not released must be placed in juvenile care facilities that meet or exceed state licensing requirements for the provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Miller v. Alabama NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MILLER v. ALABAMA certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of alabama No. 109646.Argued March 20, 2012Decided June 25, 2012[ 1 ] In each of these cases, a 14-year-old was convicted of murder and sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In No. 109647, petitioner Jackson accompanied two other boys to a video store to commit a robbery; on the way to the store, he learned that one of the boys was carrying a shotgun. Jackson stayed outside the store for most of the robbery, but after he entered, one of his co-conspi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
I.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the entire proceeding against the present petitioner arising out of Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2000 (G.R. No. 543/2000) and also for a direction to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj to pass an order of acquittal and for the release of the petitioner in Trial No. 162 of 2003.2. It has been contended that the aforesaid case was instituted against the present petitioner on 30.3.2000 and in absence of Juvenile Board it proceeded in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. As yet the enquiry trial against the petitioner has not been concluded even after the lapses of four years six months. The petitioner was sent to remand home on 7.4.2000 and since then he is rotting there. Due to the illegal and arbitrary action of the learned Court below the freedom and liberty of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sadanand Mukherjee, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This is an application for bail for the offences punishable under Sections- 324, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case is that the petitioner inflicted dagger injury to the deceased Sarita Jha in presence of the informant, who also triad to save her sister. The informant was also assaulted by the petitioner with dagger, deceased Sarita Jha succumbed to the injuries.3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the alleged offence was committed on 24.3. 2000 when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force, and as par provisions of the said Act the petitioner ceased to be a juvenile and as such his case was treated as a general one and his trial proceeded in the trial court, while trial proceeding Juvanile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force on 1.4.2001, as amended in the year, 2006 which contemplaces that 'Juvanile in conflict with law' means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This reference is made under Rule 9 of the rules for the Regulation of the Procedure of Officers Appointed to Administer Justice in the Lushai Hills 1937, for confirmation of judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawl District, Aizawl in Case No. CRI. Tr. 1604/2001 (Serehip P. S. Case 61/2001) under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code, against the respondent herein and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. We have heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned public prosecutor, Mizoram and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent, appointed by the Court.3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19-8-2001 a written first information report was lodged in Serchhip police station by Rualkhuma, P. W. 1, father of the victim, of Serchhip Chanmari Veng intimating t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
P.K. Sarin, J.1. Heard.2. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner No. 2 Sanjay Chauhan, is aged about fourteen and a half years, which shows that the Petitioner No. 2 is claiming himself to be juvenile. However his age does not appear to have been determined by a Juvenile Court under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. If an accused is juvenile, the Juvenile Court has to first determine his age under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after holding due inquiry. If after such enquiry the accused is found to be juvenile then his bail matter will have to be considered under Section 18 of the Act and not under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. In the present case, the age of Petitioner No. 2 does not appear to have been determined by a Juvenile Court under Section 32 of the Act, so there is no option but to remit his case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who shall be deemed to be exercisin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR665; 1991CriLJ445
1. On 1st August, 1990 this Hon'ble Court issued a notice to the learned Advocate-General of Maharashtra seeking his assistance to determine the question as to whether the Bombay Children Act, 1948 has stood repealed on coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. This question is now being determined after hearing submissions of the learned Advocate-General and all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.2. For the purpose of consideration of the above question, it is necessary to refer to the legislative history of the two Acts and, briefly, to their respective provisions.3. On 1st December, 1986 the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Act No. 53 of 1986) received the assent of the President. The said Act is a Parliamentary Statute enacted to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to, and disposition of, delinquent juveniles.4. On 13th day of August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)481; (2003)2BOMLR562; 2003(2)MhLj105
Smt. Ranjana Desai, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The petitioner is a registered organisation established in 1986. It does work in the red light areas of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai with the object of preventing the trafficking of women and children and rehabilitating the victims of forced prostitution. This petition is filed in public interest to protect children and minor girls rescued from the flesh trade against the pimps and brothel keepers keen on re-acquiring possession of the girls. 3. The 1st respondent, State of Maharashtra has established institutions for the care, protection and rehabilitation of women and children rescued from the flesh trade. The Government Special Rehabilitation Centre for Girls at Deonar is one such institution for the care and protection of child victims of forced prostitution. The 2nd respondent is the Probation Officer appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2357; ILR2005KAR1572; 2005(2)KarLJ481
ORDER1. This reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Davangere in S.C. No. 29 of 2004 seeking decision of this Court on a question of law as well as interpretation of certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 56 of 2000') vis-a-vis Section 27 of the Cr. P.C. In view of the difficulty that has arisen to apply in view of the principles mentioned in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2000 Kar. 2542.2. The respondent-Harshad, a juvenile has been charge-sheeted along with others for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. In the charge-sheet filed by the CPI, Davangere, the respondent-juvenile has been ranked as accused 9. As he was found to be juvenile, his case was separated from S.C. No. 6 of 2003 and given a new number as S.C. No. 29 of 2004. Thereafter, the le...
Tag this Judgment!