Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR188; 1999(4)BomCR273; (1999)2BOMLR609; 2000(3)MhLj268
ORDERF.I. Rebello J.1. This petition along with several other petitions was posted for hearing on a common issue which arose therein. The issue is, what is the power of this Court to appoint a foreign guardian, in respect of infants, where temporary guardianship was granted in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. As the matter was not covered by any reported judgment and involved a large number of children in respect of whom petitions were pending in this Court, notice was issued amongst others to the learned Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra. Various organizations including ICSW. Counsel generally appearing in these matters were heard and their views have been considered.2. The facts in the present petition are only been set out as they will be sufficient for the purpose of disposing of the issue in controversy.3. The petitioners herein have moved this Court under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent as also under section 3 and other provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR287; 1996CriLJ24; (1996)IIILLJ646Bom; 1995(2)MhLj719
1. This writ petition raises an interesting question of law as to whether a person who was a minor on the date when an alleged offence under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was committed can be tried by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges an order dated September 28, 1993 made by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Thane, who dismissed her application for deleting her name from the proceedings before it. 3. The petitioner is the daughter of 3rd Respondent and was born on September 12, 1974. At the material time, she was still a minor studying in the High School. Though she was a minor, she and her father were Proprietors of Powerloom business in Bhiwandi. The 1st respondent filed complaint (ULP) No. 163 of 1992 before the Industrial Court at Thane, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003CriLJ4522
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Smt. Usha Kejariwal, Additional Public Prosecutor, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.2. This Writ Petition is filed by Master Rajeev Shankarlal Parmar, petitioner No. 1 through petitioner No. 2, a practising Advocate of this Court, as Public Interest Litigation being Criminal Writ Petition No. 823 of 2003. In the said petition, following prayers have been made:-'(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the First Petitioner's incarceration in Mumbai Central Prison at Arthur Road unlawful and in violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Constitution of India;(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the second Respondent to produce the first Petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board forthwith;(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct that the First Petitioner be shifted forthwith from the Mumbai Central Prison at Arthur Road to the Observation Home at Umer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant271; AIR1966Mys271
Tukol, J.(1) These four references have been made by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga to quash the orders of commitment under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in each of the cases, on the ground that the respondent or the respondents committed to his Court for trial have to be tried under the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of commitment in each of the cases in contrary to law. None of the respondents in any of the cases appeared after due notice. We therefore requested Mr. Malimath to appear as Amicus curiae.(2) There is no dispute that none of the respondents in these cases has attained the age of 16 years and is therefore a child as defined as Section 4(1)(f) of the Mysore Children Act, 1964. The sole ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has sought for the quashing of the order of commitment in each case is that the respondent or respondents are wholly triable by a Juvenile Court under the provisions of the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2797
ORDERJ.C. Mishra, J.1. This revision has been filed by the accused against the order dated 17th Oct. 1996 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, rejecting the application that his case should be sent to the Court of Juvenile Judge for trial as he is a juvenile and in view of the provisions of Section of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') he cannot be tried with the other accused.2. Accused Mayank along with other accused was named in the F.I.R. and he was committed to session. At the time of trial the accused-revisionist moved an application stating that he was born on 1st July, 1980 and, therefore, he had not completed 16 years of age on the date of occurrence of offence. The State Counsel contested the application stating that he had completed 16 years of age before the date of occurrence and thus he was not a juvenile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gave opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The accused examined his mother Smt. Prem Bal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP100; 1978CriLJ585; 1978MPLJ238
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. Devisingh the first appellant, had admittedly not attained the age of 16 years on the date of the offence. He was then a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2(c) of the M. P. Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 15 of 1970) (hereinafter called the 'Bal Adhiniyam'). He was tried for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Penal Code. Be was, along with three other accused, tried by the Sessions Judge, Seoni, who found him guilty of that offence. However, he was dealt with under Section 6 of the Bal Adhiniyam. 2. He preferred this appeal for his acquittal. When the appeal went before a Division Bench, the following question arose, which has been referred to us for opinion:-- 'Whether the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by the provisions of the Bal Adhiniyam, 1970, on Juvenile Courts to try a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2 (c) of the Adhiniyam for all offences, including those punishable with life impr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001CriLJ214
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This is criminal revision under Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (henceforth 'the Act'). The applicant Rahul Mishra is being charged under Sections 147, 294, 452, 323, 506 Part-II, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 8/2000, Police Station Basantpur, District Sarguja. It appears that there is no dispute between the State and the applicant regarding the age of the applicant. He is less than 16 years of age and, therefore, he is a juvenile and, consequently deemed to be a juvenile offender with the meaning of the Act.2. The applicant was not granted anticipatory bail by this Court. However, he was produced before the Juvenile Court presided over by two Judvenile Magistrates First Class at Ambikapur by order dated 21-6-2000. Both the Magistrates of the Juvenile Court have passed an order sending the applicant to juvenile home.3. In appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 27-6-2000, has confirmed the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 96(2003)CLT645; 2004CriLJ1858
P. K. Mohanty J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 123/31 of 1999 holding that the petitioner is not a juvenile in terms of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela.2. The case in nut-shell is that the petitioner along with another was accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 376(2)(g) & (f)/634 of the Indian Penal Code on 4.1.1999. He was arrested and produced before the learned S.D.J.M. Rourkela on 5.1.1999 in G. R. Case No. 3 of 1999. A prayer was made on 6.5.1999 before the learned Magistrate to send the petitioner to the juvenile jail, since he was a juvenile as on the date. Charge-sheet was submitted on 20.5.1999 under the aforesaid Sections and the case was committed to the Court of Session to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela. A petition appears to have been filed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC237; 1984CriLJ168; 1983(2)Crimes937(SC); 1983(2)SCALE756; 1984Supp(1)SCC228; [1984]1SCR803; 1984(16)LC166(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Appellant Gopinath Ghosh was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia along with Bharat Ghosh @ Sadhu and Jagannath Ghosh Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Rabi Ghosh, son of Kartick Ghosh on August 19, 1974. Appellant Gopinath Ghosh is alleged to have caused an injury with a fala which landed on the left side chest below the neck of deceased Rabi. Information of the offence was lodged by Kartick Ghosh, father of deceased Rabi at Nakashipara Police Station at about 3.40 P.M. on the date of the occurrence. After completing the investigation, appellant and two others were charge-sheeted for an offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, The case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia who on appraisal of evidence held that appellant Gopinath Gho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)6SCC759
K.T. Thomas and; D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.1. The appellant before us has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of charas. The prosecution case is that on 22-5-1990, on suspicion the appellant and one Tulsa Bai were apprehended when opium from Tulsa Bai and charas from the appellant were recovered. The trial court acquitted both the accused in separate trials. However, on appeal by the State the judgment of the Sessions Judge was reversed in the case of the appellant by setting aside the acquittal and he had been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Hence this appeal.2. In this appeal it is urged that the appellant was born on 9-12-1974 and as the date of alleged committal of offence was 22-5-1990, and on that day, he was a juvenile being less than 16 years of age, he could not have been tried by the Sessions Court but by the Juvenile Court and hence his conviction is bad. Unf...
Tag this Judgment!