Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 118 (MP)

In Reference v. Golu

2015-01-30

M.K.MUDGAL

body2015
Judgment M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. Heard. Reference has been made by the Registry vide order dated 25-9-2013 for consideration of whether the Principal Judge of Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as "the J.J. Board") under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the J.J. Act") had power to commit a juvenile in conflict with law to a Reformatory Home for a period of more than three years no matter whatever the nature of crime. 2. The facts of the case in brief that have given rise to the occasion for present consideration are that a criminal case under Section 392 of the IPC was registered against a juvenile named Golu @ Mota at Police Station, Jahangirabad, Bhopal and after investigation the charge sheet was filed before the Principal Judge, J.J. Board, Bhopal at Criminal Case No. 910/07. After trial the J.J. Board convicted the delinquent under Section 392 of the IPC vide judgment dated 7-4-08 and sent him to Special Reformatory Home, Seoni for a period of six years till he attained the age of majority, i.e., 18 years on 7-4-2014. The delinquent or anyone on his part did not challenge the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment regarding the period of custody. 3. The matter came to light at a conference of Judicial Officers convened under the aegis of the JOTRI on 21-9-2013. Thereafter, the matter was reported by the officers of Registry to the Hon'ble Chief Justice where from the issue was directed for academic purposes. 4. A notice was issued to the delinquent but he did not respond as he had completed the period of custody, that he was committed to the Reformatory. 5. In order to put the things in proper perspective it would be apt to reproduce the relevant provisions, i.e., Sections 15 and 16 of the J.J. Act, which reads as under:-- "15. A notice was issued to the delinquent but he did not respond as he had completed the period of custody, that he was committed to the Reformatory. 5. In order to put the things in proper perspective it would be apt to reproduce the relevant provisions, i.e., Sections 15 and 16 of the J.J. Act, which reads as under:-- "15. Order that may be passed regarding juvenile.--(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,-- (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice of admonition following appropriate inquiry against and counseling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile; (b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counseling and similar activities; (c) order the juvenile to perform community service; (d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money; (e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require for the good behavior and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behavior and well-being of the juvenile for any period of not exceeding three years; (g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years: Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a Probation Officer or a recognised voluntary organisation or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a Probation Officer or a recognised voluntary organisation or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (3) Where an order under clause (d); clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) is made, the Board may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the juvenile and of the public, it is expedient so to do, in addition make an order that the juvenile in conflict with law shall remain under the supervision of a Probation Officer named in the order during such period, no exceeding three years as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the juvenile in conflict with law: Provided that if at any time afterwards it appears to the Board on receiving a report from the Probation Officer or otherwise, that the juvenile in conflict with law has not been of good behavior during the period of supervision or that the fit institution under whose care the juvenile was placed is no longer able or willing to ensure the good behavior and well-being of the juvenile it may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, order the juvenile in conflict with law to be sent to a special home. (4) The Board shall while making a supervision order under sub-section (3), explain to the juvenile and the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, under whose care the juvenile has been placed, the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to the juvenile, the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer. 16. 16. Order that may not be passed against juvenile.--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for any term, which may extend to imprisonment for life, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security: Provided that where a juvenile who has attained the age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is so serious in nature or that his conduct and behavior have been such that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government. (2) On receipt of a report from a Board under sub-section (1), the State Government may make such arrangement in respect of the juvenile as it deems proper and may order such juvenile to be kept under protective custody at such place and on such conditions as it thinks fit: Provided that the period of detention so ordered shall not exceed in any case the maximum period provided under Section 15 of this Act." 6. On bare reading of the said provisions it is manifestly clear from sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the J.J. Act that no juvenile in conflict with law can be committed to a Reformatory for a period exceeding that of three years. As per Section 16 (i) of the J.J. Act, it is obvious that a delinquent in conflict with law is exempt from all forms of punishment for all crime committed by an adult. Being sent to a Reformatory is a matter entirely different from being sentenced to a punishment under IPC, which is served in a jail whereas the period of reform is considered as necessary to win away a juvenile in conflict with law from incipient criminal inclination. Being sent to a Reformatory is a matter entirely different from being sentenced to a punishment under IPC, which is served in a jail whereas the period of reform is considered as necessary to win away a juvenile in conflict with law from incipient criminal inclination. The period of reform such a juvenile is to be subjected to cannot be more than three years even according to proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the J.J. Act. 7. That the period of custody in Reformatory has not to exceed the period of three years has been made emphatically clear in Para 19 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 13 SCC 744 , which reads as under:-- "Apart from the aforesaid provisions of the Act as amended, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short "the Rules"), Rule 98, in particular, has to be read along with Section 20 of the Act as amended by the Amendment Act, 2006, which provides that even after disposal of cases of juveniles in conflict with law, the State Government or the Board could, either suo motu or on an application made for the purpose, review the case of a juvenile, determine the juvenility and pass an appropriate order under Section 64 of the Act for immediate release of the juvenile whose period of detention had exceeded the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the Act, i.e., 3 years. All the above relevant provisions including the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules have been elaborately considered by this Court in Hari Ram." 8. Similarly, on going through another judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Jagdish Gupta Vs. State of Delhi judgment, dated 30-8-2013, it transpires that the period of custody in a Reformatory has not to exceed the period of three years. 9. In view of the above discussion, one cannot but arrive at the conclusion that no juvenile in conflict with law cannot only be subjected to any form of sentence but also cannot be committed to a Reformatory for his own good for a period of more than three years. The question referred to stands answered as above. 9. In view of the above discussion, one cannot but arrive at the conclusion that no juvenile in conflict with law cannot only be subjected to any form of sentence but also cannot be committed to a Reformatory for his own good for a period of more than three years. The question referred to stands answered as above. So far as the case under reference is concerned, there is no need to issue any direction as the period of custody for six years, which is contrary to Sections 15 and 16 of the J.J. Act and for which the delinquent was committed to the custody of Reformatory is already over.