Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 730 (PAT)

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2001-08-14

P.K.DEB

body2001
Judgment 1. The order impugned is definitely a revisable order under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. By the impugned order dated 4.6.2001 the Additional Sessions Judge-X, Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 83/2001 held the petitioner to be major and not a juvenile even under the new Act. The bone of contention of the order is that as the occurrence took place while the Juvenile Justice Act was in vogue, there is no application of the new Act which came into force on 30.12.2000. 3. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 4.8.2000 and on 5.8.2000 the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. When the petitioner claimed to be a juvenile his case was referred to the Medical Board and on 27.1.2001 the Medical Board was constituted and the petitioner was examined and by the report dated 27.1.2001 the Medical Board found the petitioner to be aged about 18 years which means that he was below the age of 18 years. As per the old Act a person becomes juvenile only when he is within the age of 16 years. But after promulgation of the new Act a person is construed to be a juvenile if he is minor i.e. within the age of 18 years. If the new Act is considered and construed then the petitioner is a juvenile on the face of it. But the learned court below held that as the occurrence took place when the old Act was in vogue, the petitioner can not be construed as a juvenile. 4. It appears that the learned court below has not construed Sections 3 and Repealing Section 69(2) of the new Act. Section 3 of the new Act which came into force on 30.12.2000 runs as follows : "When an enquiry has been initiated against a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection and during the course of such enquiry the juvenile or the child ceases to be such, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the inquiry may be continued and orders may be made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a juvenile or a child." 5. The Repealing Section 69(2) of the new Act runs as follows : "notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act." 6. Here, in the present case, although, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 5.8.2000, but the enquiry regarding the juvenility started from the continuance of the old Act but it continued when the new Act came into force. The Medical Boards report is of the month January, 2001 when the new Act has already come into force and by that way when the age of the petitioner was found about 18 years, then definitely on the date of the occurrence of the alleged offence the petitioner was below the age of 18 years and as such is a juvenile under the new Act. 7. In that view, the learned court below has committed error in law in passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. The learned court below is hereby directed to act, according to law and procedure, in respect of the petitioner considering him to be a juvenile. 8. This criminal revision application is, accordingly, allowed.