Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 191 (ORI)

Kabuli Mohanta v. State of Orissa

2009-03-05

I.MAHANTY

body2009
ORDER 05.03.2009 — Heard Mr. Smruti Ranjan Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. In the present revision, challenge has been made to an order dated 29.10.2008 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jajpur in G.R. Case No.29 of 2008 whereby the Board has been pleased to reject the petitioner’s application under Rule-13(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short ‘2007 Rules’) on the ground that the offence under Section 379 IPC for which the petitioner has been charged, appears to be ‘serious’ offence and the ends of justice requires rejection of the same. Rule-13(7) of 2007 Rules is quoted herein below : “13- Post-production processes by the Board : xx xx xx xx (7) In all other cases except where the nature of alleged offence is serious, delay beyond four to six months shall lead to the termination of the proceedings.” Mr. Parija submits that though under Rule 13(7), ‘serious’ offence has not been defined, but ‘non-serious’ offences have been categorized under Rule-11(9) which is quoted herein below :- “11. Pre and Post-production action of Police and other agencies : xx xx xxx xxx (9) For all other cases involving offences of non-serious nature (entailing a punishment of less than 7 years imprisonment for adults) and cases where apprehension is not necessary in the interest of the juvenile, the Police or the Juvenile or the Child Welfare Officer from the nearest Police Station, shall intimate the parents or guardian of the juvenile about forwarding the information regarding nature of offence alleged to be committed by their child or ward along with his socio-economic background to the Board, which shall have the power to call the juvenile for subsequent hearings.” On consideration of the above, the legislative mandate behind introducing Rule-13(7) is that when a juvenile is held in custody for a ‘non-serious’ offence, the inquiry by the Board is required to be carried out expeditiously, within the period mandated in the statute. Therefore, on the failure of the Board to carry out such inquiry within the statutory period, a right is vested on the juvenile to seek termination of the proceeding. If the inquiry by the Board is delayed beyond six months and the nature of the alleged offence is ‘non-serious’, Rule-13(7) mandates termination of the inquiry. Therefore, on the failure of the Board to carry out such inquiry within the statutory period, a right is vested on the juvenile to seek termination of the proceeding. If the inquiry by the Board is delayed beyond six months and the nature of the alleged offence is ‘non-serious’, Rule-13(7) mandates termination of the inquiry. From Rule-11(9) it is clear that ‘non-serious’ offences have been defined to apply to the offences where the punishment pre¬scribed is less than seven years of imprisonment. In the present case, the petitioner has been charged for an offence under Section 379 IPC and the maximum punishment prescribed thereunder is for a term of imprisonment which may extend to three years or fine or with both. Therefore, the offence for which the petitioner has been charged i.e., Section 379 would fall under the category of offence of ‘non-serious nature and consequently the Juvenile Board in terms of Rule-13(7) was required to complete the inquiry within a period of four months and not beyond six months. The failure of the Board to complete the inquiry within the period would entail the juvenile with a right to seek for termination of the proceeding. Learned counsel for the State places before me a report of the Probation Officer which reveals that the involvement of the petitioner with the crime is on account of broken family, poverty and lack of parental care. It further reveals that in search of food and shelter, the petitioner has been trapped by bad associa¬tion and adopted the path of crime. To a query from the Court, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel states that the petitioner has not been involved in any other crime apart from the crime in which he has been presently involved. I am afraid, inspite of the report of the Probation Officer, in view of the mandate of law under Rule-13(7), the juvenile is entitled in law to seek termi¬nation of the proceeding if the proceeding is not completed within the mandatory period where the offence is not ‘serious’ in nature. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the provi¬sions of Rule-13(7) fully apply to the facts of the present case and the petitioner, in law, is entitled to seek termination of the proceeding. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the provi¬sions of Rule-13(7) fully apply to the facts of the present case and the petitioner, in law, is entitled to seek termination of the proceeding. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.10.2008 under Annexure-4 is set aside and G.R. Case No.29 of 2008, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, stands terminated and the juvenile be set at liberty forthwith. The Criminal Revision is allowed. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned Addl.Standing Counsel for the State for immediate communication of the same to the trial Court. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Revision allowed.