ABUZAR HOSSAIN @ GULAM HOSSAIN versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 10-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 14 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 244 
A 
ABUZAR HOSSAIN @ GULAM HOSSAIN 
B 
c 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2006 etc.) 
OCTOBER 10, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA, T.S. THAKUR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF 
CHILDREN) ACT, 2000: 
s. 7-A read with r.12 of 2007 Rules - Claim of juvenility -
Held: Can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of 
the case - Delay in raising the claim cannot be a ground for 
rejection of the claim - Legal position with regard to s. 7-A and 
0 
r. 12 summarised - Procedure for making a claim with regard 
to juvenility, and guidelines for inquiring into such a claim, 
laid down - Procedure, where accused setting up the plea of 
juvenility is unable to produce any of the documents 
enumerated in r. 12(a)(i) to (iii) - Explained - Juvenile Justice 
E (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - r.12 - Juvenile 
Justice Act, 1986 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 15(3), 
39(e),(f), 45 and 47 - Convention on the Rights of the ChiJd -
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the 
Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985 - United Nations 
Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 
F (1990). 
The appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 1193 of 2006, raised 
a plea that he was juvenile on the date of incident and, 
as such, he could not have been tried in the normal 
G criminal court. Since the plea of juvenility of the appellant 
was not pressed before the courts below, Gopinath Ghosh 
v. State of West Bengal1 was relied on to contend that 
1. 
1984 SCR 8.03 
H 
244 
ABUZAR HOSSAIN @ GULAM HOSSAIN v. STATE 
245 
OF WEST BENGAL 
notwithstanding the fact that the plea of juvenility had not 
A 
been pressed, it was obligatory on the court to go into 
the question of juvenility and determine the age. The two 
Judge Bench before which the instant group of appeals 
was listed for hearing, felt that there was substantial 
discordance in the approach of the matter on the 
B 
question of juvenility in Gopinath Ghosh, and Akbar Sheikh 
and others v. State of West Benga/2, and, therefore, referred 
the matter to larger Bench. 
The question for consideration before the Court C 
was: when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and 
sent for determination when it is raised for the first time 
in appeal or before Supreme Court or raised in trial and 
appeal but not pressed and then pressed for the first time 
before Supreme or even raised for the first time after final 
disposal of the case. 
D 
Answering the reference, the Court 
HELD: (Per R.M. Lodha, J. (for himself and for Anil 
R. Dave, J) 
E 
1.1 Parliament felt it necessary that uniform juvenile 
justice system should be available throughout the 
country which should make adequate provision for 
dealing with all aspects in the changing social, cultural 
and economic situation in the country and there was also 
F 
need for larger involvement of informal systems and 
community based welfare agencies in the care, 
protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of 
such juveniles and with these objectives in mind, it 
enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which was replaced 
G 
by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 
Act, 2000. The 2000 Act has been enacted to carry 
forward the constitutional philosophy engrafted in Arts. 
15(3), 39(e) and (f), 45 and 47 of the Constitution and also 
2. 
2009 (7) SCR 518. 
H 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A to incorporate the standards prescribed in the 
Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations 
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of 
Juvenile Justice, 1985, the United Nations Rules for the 
Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990) 
B and all other relevant international instruments. [para 3-
4] [254-G; 255-A-D] 
1.2 By Act 33 of 2006, Parliament brought in 
significant changes in 2000 Act. Inter alia, s. 7A came to 
be inserted, which provides for procedure to be followed 
C when claim of juvenility is raised before any court. Rule 
12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 
Children) Rules, 2007 provides for procedure to be 
followed in determination of age. [para 7 and 10] [256-E; 
258-E] 
D 
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2005 (1) 
SCR 1019 = 2005 (3) SCC 551- referred to. 
1.3 It is incorrect to say that the claim of juvenility 
E cannot be raised before this Court after disposal of the 
case. The expression, 'any court' in s.7A is too wide and 
comprehensiv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.