Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1152 (MP)

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of M. P.

2000-10-17

S.C.PANDEY

body2000
This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order, framing charge, dated 25.8.2000 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 312/2000. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Jagdalpur by order dated 10.7.2000 on the basis of the medical report held that the applicant is more than 16 (sixteen) years of age and, therefore, he is not a juvenile within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 (henceforth 'the Act'). The Act came into force on 3.12.1986 and was made for 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 by a special Court known as Juvenile Court constituted under section 5 of the Act. So far as a male person is concerned a person will be deemed to be a juvenile if he has not attained the age of commission of crime. Therefore, it is incumbent upon a Court trying a person to find out if he is liable to get the benefit of the Act. Section 32 of the Act gives power to the competent authority to make a due enquiry regarding the age of a person after recording evidence as may be necessary. It is required to give a finding whether a person is juvenile or not after recording evidence and stating his age as far as nearly as may be. The competent authority has been defined in the Act under section 2(d) thereof which says that competent authority means in relation to neglected juveniles a Board and in relation to delinquent juveniles, a Juvenile Court and where no such Board or Juvenile Court has been constituted, includes any Court empowered under sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act to exercise the powers conferred on a Board or Juvenile Court. However, under sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act, an additional power has been conferred upon the High Court and the Court of Session to determine if a person is a juvenile when a proceeding comes before it either in appeal, revision or otherwise. The use of the word 'otherwise' in section 7(3) of the Act indicates that the Court of Session shall have power to exercise the powers of a competent authority in respect of delinquent juveniles during the pendency of the sessions trial. The use of the word 'otherwise' in section 7(3) of the Act indicates that the Court of Session shall have power to exercise the powers of a competent authority in respect of delinquent juveniles during the pendency of the sessions trial. It does not appear from the order dated 10.7.2000 or any order before framing charge against the applicant that such enquiry was made by the Court of Session. Merely because some material was placed in the shape of medical opinion before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, it cannot be inferred that an enquiry within the meaning of section 32(I) of the Act was taken-up by the Court of Session. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge appears to have framed the charge against the application without recording a finding in accordance with section 32(I) of the Act if the applicant is juvenile or not. It is, therefore, in the interests of justice to direct the Court of Session to make an enquiry in terms of section 32(I) of the Act by recording evidence and giving the applicant an opportunity to prove that his case is covered by the Act. In this connection the observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, reported in JT 1997(8) SC 537 at page 546 in para 23, are being reproduced here for the guidance of the Court below, as under: "Before parting with this Judgment, we would like to re-emphasise that when a plea is raised on behalf of an accused that he was a "child" within the meaning of the definition of the expression under the Act, It becomes obligatory for the Court, in case it entertains any doubt about the age as claimed by the accused, to hold an inquiry itself for determination of the question of age of the accused or cause an enquiry to be held and seek a report regarding the same, if necessary, by asking the parties to lead evidence in that regard. Keeping in view the beneficial nature of the socially oriented legislation, it is an obligation of the Court where such a plea is raised to examine that plea with care and it cannot fold its hands and without returning a positive finding regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the provisions to an accused. Keeping in view the beneficial nature of the socially oriented legislation, it is an obligation of the Court where such a plea is raised to examine that plea with care and it cannot fold its hands and without returning a positive finding regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the provisions to an accused. The Court must hold all enquiry and return a finding regarding the age, one way or the other. We expect the High Courts and subordinate Courts to deal with such cases with more sensitivity as otherwise the object of the Acts would be frustrated and the effort of the Legislature to reform the delinquent child and reclaim him as a useful member of the society would be frustrated. The High Courts may issue administrative directions to the subordinate Courts that whenever such a plea is raised before them and they entertain any reasonable doubt about the correctness of the plea, they must as a rule, conduct an inquiry by giving opportunity to the parties to establish their respective claims and return a finding regarding the age of the concerned accused and then deal with the case in the manner provided by law.” The result of the aforesaid discussion is that it is directed that the Court of Session i.e. learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Jagdalpur shall make an enquiry and after making enquiry in accordance with section 32 of the Act, in case he comes to the conclusion that the applicant is a juvenile, he will proceed in accordance with law and in case, he comes to the conclusion that the applicant is not a juvenile, he will proceed with the sessions trial on the charges already framed by him. A copy of this order may be circulated by the office in all the Courts of Session of the State for guidance of all the Criminal Courts as directed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 23 (quoted above) in the case of Bhola Bhagat, JT 1997(8) SC 537 (supra). With these observations, this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby disposed of. The M.(Cr.)P. No. 1625/2000 for grant of stay is hereby dismissed.