Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 105 (ALL)

Vijai Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2003-01-17

K.N.SINHA

body2003
( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 9-12-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Agra in Sessions Trial No. 674 of 1994, State v. Vijai Singh and others rejecting the application of revisionist for holding them juvenile and sending the case to the Juvenile Judge. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA and Sri V. K. Birla learned counsel for respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) I have also perused the impugned or-der. The revisionists were facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 674 of 1996, and on enforcement of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, revisionists moved an application before the Court that the occurrence has taken place in the night between 19th and 20th of January 1996 and the revisionists were juvenile on that date. It was further pleaded that date of birth of revisionist Vijai Singh was 10-3-1979, he surrendered in the Court on 6-2-1996 on the date of incident i. e. on 19-1-1996 the revisionists were juvenile, according to this date of birth. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Court considered the application and rejected the same keeping in view the fact of date of occurrence and the date of enforcement of the new Act. This Act came into force with effect from 1st of April 2001, vide Central Government Notification No. S. O. 177 (E) dated 2/02/2001. The occurrence in the above-noted trial had taken place in the nights of 19th and 20th of January 1996 and calculated on this basis the age of revisionist Vijai Singh came to be 16 years and 10 months on the date of occurrence and he surrendered in the Court on 6-2-1996, so far as revisionist Rajesh is concerned his date of birth is given to be 4-11-1979 and calculated on this basis the age comes to be 16 years two months 15 days, on the date of occurrence and he surrendered in the Court on 2/02/1996. It is settled view that the relevant date for the purpose of considering the question of juvenile would be either the date on which the offence was committed or on the date when the offender was brought to the Court or before the competent authority. It is settled view that the relevant date for the purpose of considering the question of juvenile would be either the date on which the offence was committed or on the date when the offender was brought to the Court or before the competent authority. ( 5 ) THUS, on the basis of above calculation both the revisionists either on the date of commission of offence or on the date of their surrender they were above 16 years of age. The old Act (The Juvenile Justice Act 1986) was replaced by new Act of 2000. The age in the old Act of 1986 for treating the offender to be a juvenile was upto 16 years only. The age was raised to 18 years only in the new Act of 2000. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for revisionists, the revisionists may also be extended the benefit of new Act. The learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed on the ground that the new Act of 2000 was not in force on the date of occurrence hence, it is not applicable in the case of offences committed prior to the enforcement of New Act. This fact is not in dispute that the trial was pending prior to the date of enforcement of the new Act of 2000. ( 7 ) THE new Act of 2000 has made a special provision for dealing with the cases which are pending on the enforcement of the new Act. Section 20 of the Act reads as under :- "20. Special provision in respect of pending cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass the orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence. " ( 8 ) THE position with regard to the pending cases has been made clear enough which shows that if any trial is pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, the proceedings shall be concluded under the provisions of the old Act. This provision has been made regarding the proceedings in respect of a juvenile but it does not say that a person not held to be juvenile under the old Act can be treated juvenile by the new Act if he is below the age of 18 years. ( 9 ) IN these circumstances the learned trial Court has rightly held that provisions of new Act are not applicable to the instant case. Therefore, the order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. ( 10 ) THE revision is accordingly dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Revision dismissed. . .