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of Maharashtra seeking his assistance to determine the question as to whether the Bombay Children Act, 1948 has stood repealed on coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.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 : (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 : Patna
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. A division Bench of this Court, while hearing the instant appeal, doubted the correctness of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 BLJR 321, referred the matter to a larger Bench to consider the correctness of the judgment of the Full Bench in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal : 1984CriLJ168 . The Division Bench of this Court is of the view that although in Krishna Bhagwan case (supra), the Full Bench relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopinath Ghosh case but it has omitted to consider paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. This is how the matter has been placed before us for answering the reference.2. In the instant case, two appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant No. 1, Gopal Nag is the son of appellant No. 2, Lai Mohan Nag. It was argued before t...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 8.3.2004, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8573 of 2003 by way of which the High Court has set aside the order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as 'GCM'), that had awarded the punishment of dismissal from service and 7 years rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as 'RI') to the respondent. The High Court held that, under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the JJ Act') the respondent could not be tried by GCM for the charges related to the period when he was juvenile and therefore, the GCM proceedings stood vitiated in entirety. However, the High Court has given liberty to the appellant to hold a fresh GCM, on the charges related to offences committed by the respondent after he attained the age of 18 years.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4465 of 2005 Union of India & Ors. Appellants Versus Ex-GNR Ajeet Singh Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 8.3.2004, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8573 of 2003 by way of which the High Court has set aside the order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as GCM), that had awarded the punishment of dismissal from service and 7 years rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as RI) to the respondent. The High Court held that, under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the J.Act) the respondent could not be tried by GCM for the charges related to the period when he was juvenile and therefore, the GCM proceedings stood vitiated in entirety. However, the High Court has given liberty ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
ORDER1. Initially proceedings against the appellant were initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. By order dated 13th May, 1999, the Juvenile Court recorded that the appellant herein Mr.Chander Kumar was above the age of 16 years on the date of commission of the offence and therefore, the Investigating Officer should file a supplementary charge sheet before the concerned adult Court.2. The supplementary charge sheet was filed and by the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2002, the appellant has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and by order dated 25th January, 2002 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.3. The appeal filed by the appellant was admitted vide order dated 11th February, 2002 and has remained pending since then.4. In the meanwhile, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was enacted and the earlier enac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.121 OF2022VINOD KATARA .PETITIONER(S) Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.1. Personal liberty of a person is one of the oldest concepts to be purported by national courts. As long ago as in 1215, the English Magna Carta provided that: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned.... but..... by law of the land." 1 2. Today, the concept of personal liberty has received a far more expansive interpretation. The notion that is accepted today is that liberty encompasses these rights and privileges which have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free man and not merely freedom from bodily restraint. There can be no cavil in saying that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amounts to deprivation of their personal liberty on multiple aspects.3. This Writ Application under Article 32 of the Constitution is at the instance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2084 OF2009Mumtaz@ Muntyaz .Appellant Versus State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand) . Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.460 OF2010Dilshad @ Pappu .Appellant Versus State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand) . Respondent JUDGMENT Uday U. Lalit, J.These appeals by special leave at the instance of Appellants Mumtaz alias Muntyaz and Dilshad alias Pappu challenge correctness of the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.270 of 2001 affirming their conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) passed in Sessions Trial No.15 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee.2. On 27.12.1990 at about 6.30 AM PW-1 Radhey Shyam lodged FIR Ext.A-1 with Police Station Manglaur that his nephew Pawan Kumar had left his house at about 8.00 PM on the previous day and that in the intervening nig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :15. 4.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DEVADASS H.C.P.No.385 of 2012 Jayavel .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State rep. by Secretary to Govt., Home Dept, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Addl. Director General of Prisons, Egmore, Chennai-8 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.4. The Inspector of Police, N-2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue T.Jayavel, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and declare him a Juvenile in conflict with law and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan for Mr. K. Ilayaraja For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.DEVADASS, J.) Petitioner, Jayavelu, a lifer, now lodged ...
Tag this Judgment!