Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)91BOMLR692; 1990CriLJ351; 1989MhLJ604
ORDER1. The essential controversy in this revision application is whether Sarita and Sharmila, who are admittedly 15 and 17 years old, are to be tried by the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or to be proceeded with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 by the authorities mentioned thereunder.2. The facts are very simple. For an offence of murder and other related offences under S. 324 and others purported to have been committed on 19th April, 1988, the petitioners along with Satish Narayan Sawant, Mohan Narayan Sawant and Smt. Yeshoda Narayan Sawant were chargesheeted by the Ponda Police. On perusal of the chargesheet on July 8, 1988 the Judicial Magistrate, Ponda, committed aforementioned Satish, Mohan and Smt. Yeshoda to the Court of Session to answer the charge under Sections 302, 323, and 324 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly this was an order made under S. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while doing that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2731; 2005(1)BLJR434; 2005CriLJ3091; [2005(3)JCR244(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC271; 2005(II)OLR(SC)191; RLW2005(2)SC261; (2005)3SCC551; 2005(1)LC587(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2001 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2001.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:-First Information Report was lodged before the police in Bokaro city registered as P.S. case No. 1/99 dated 1.1.1999 for the offence under Sections 364A, 302/201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC to the effect that on 31.12.1998 the appellant was alleged as one of the conspirators to have caused the death of the deceased by poisoning. On the basis of the FIR the appellant was arrested and produced before the C.J.M. Chas on 22.11.1999. On production, the learned CJM assessed the age of the appellant to be around 18 years old. On 28.2.2000, a petition was filed on behalf of the appellant claiming that he was a minor on the date of occurrence i.e. 31.12.1998, whereupon the learned CJM transmitted the case to the Juve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)20; 1994CriLJ1491
ORDERJ.P. Semwal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-6-1991, passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application (88 kha) of the accused-applicant,2. The accused applicant and one Raju moved an application 88 kha, on 12-6-1991, before the lower court, praying that their trial be separated from other co-accused and be transferred to the Juvenile Court in accordance with law. It was also prayed that suitable orders be passed for holding an enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the said court itself as contemplated under Section 5, read with Section 20/32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Affidavit and papers in support of proof in regard to age, were also filed. Authorities were cited on behalf of the revisionist before the lower court. The lower court considered the authorities cited on behalf of the revisionist and came to the conclusion that there was no question of separating the case or holding an enquiry, because when in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2333; RLW2009(2)SC1400; 2009(6)SCALE695; (2009)13SCC211; 2009(6)LC2643(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal raises certain questions which are fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the objects for which the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the `Juvenile Justice Act, 2000') was enacted. The said law which was enacted to deal with offences committed by juveniles, in a manner which was meant to be different from the law applicable to adults, is yet to be fully appreciated by those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the same, possibly on account of their inability to adapt to a system which, while having the trappings of the general criminal law, is, however, different therefrom. The very scheme of the aforesaid Act is rehabilitatory in nature and not adversarial which the courts are generally used to. The implementation of the said law, therefore, requires a complete change in the mind-set of those who are vested with the authority of enforcing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2268; ILR2006KAR1570; 2006(3)KarLJ125
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J. 1. The revision petitioner is accused No. 3 in S.C. No. 327/2005 and 328/2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, registered for offences punishable under Section 395 of the Act. He was aged above 16 years on the date of each offence. Since he had already attained the age of Sixteen years then, he could not be considered as a Juvenile as per law then in force i.e., the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, (referred to in this order as 1986 Act for the sake of convenience). By the time charge sheet was filed, new Act i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (referred to in this order as new Act No. 56/2000 for the sake of convenience) came into force. Under the new Act, the definition of the word Juvenile means a person, who has not completed eighteenth year of age. The short point that has therefore arisen is whether such an accused who was not a Juvenile under the 1986 Act can be considered as a Juvenile in conflic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2010CriLJ655
B. Chandra Kumar, J.1. This Revision Case has been filed by A-1 to A-3 against the Judgment, dated 22- 03-2004 in Crl.A. No. 24 of 2001 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate in C.C. No. 108 of 2000, dated 25-01-2001.2. Originally the case was filed against A-1 to A-6. A-1 and A-3 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A-2 was convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. A-2 was also convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(103)DRJ27
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. Two young boys, the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, with another young boy named Suman are alleged to have murdered Noor Alam @ Shibu, aged 5 years in the night intervening 9th/10th November, 1999. The trial of accused Suman is being conduced by the Juvenile Court while the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge and on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, have suffered life sentence for the offences under Sections 302/364/34 IPC. Both the appellants are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years besides fine for the offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.2. It is proposed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order in view of the fact that identical questions of fact and law arise in both the appeals.3. The appeals though preferred for setting aside the conviction, during the pendency of the appeals Mr. R.S. Mishra, counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990(0)MPLJ365
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner claiming to be a juvenile within the meaning of section 2(h) of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, by filing this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeks invocation of inherent powers of this Court so as to quash his order of commitment under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code requiring him to stand trial for a charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code amongst other offences alleged to have been committed by him.2. On 29-11-1986, the State through Police Purani Chhaoni filed a challan against the petitioner and two others alleging that they have been guilty of committing murder on 4-9-1986. In the challan, the age of the petitioner is shown as 18 years. On the same day, the learned Magistrate formed an opinion that the offence was triable exclusively by the Court of Session and hence committed the case accordingly. It appears that the Muddemal was not produced by the police and because the same was required to be sent to the Court of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1120; 2008CriLJ1604; 2008(2)CTC76; JT2008(1)SC669; 2008(1)KLT790(SC); 2008(2)SCALE101; (2008)3SCC111; 2008AIRSCW996; AIR2008SC1120; 2008(3)SCC111; (2008)1SCC(Cri)634; 2008CriLJ1604; 2008(1)Crimes384; 2008(1)AICLR668; 2008(2)LH(SC)906; 2008(2)KCCRSN112
C.K. Thakker, J.1. I have had the benefit of going through the judgment prepared by my learned Brother. I am in agreement with him that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. I, however, decide the appeal on the second ground that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant has failed to make out a ground that he was less than 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence.2. As observed by my learned Brother, the accused had not claimed benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 either before the trial Court or before the High Court. My learned Brother has also referred to Yaduraj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. : 1977CriLJ340 wherein this Court did not allow a new plea as to age of the accused to be raised for the first time in this Court.3. In Sushil Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1984CriLJ990 , a similar plea was raised for the first time by the appellant- accused in this Court against his conviction for an offence punishable u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1434; 2008CriLJ2066; JT2008(2)SC321; 2008(2)SCALE419; 2008AIRSCW1456; 2008(2)AICLR340; 2008(2)Supreme220; 2008(2)LH(SC)1083; 2008(4)KCCRSN263
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant was prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the India Penal Code. The occurrence took place on 20th April, 1998. He was arrested on the charge of murder of one Ramu Maistry on 8th May, 1998. Upon completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against him on 30th November, 1998. The learned trial court delivered a judgment on 28th April, 2000. In the said judgment his age was shown to be '18'. An application was filed for sending him to Borstal School in terms of Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, which was refused. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.This Court issued a limited notice as to whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident.3. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that in view of the materials placed on records, an inquiry should have ...
Tag this Judgment!