ARNIT DAS versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 09-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ARNIT DAS 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
MAY 9, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 : 
Section 2(h) and 32-Juvenile-Age-Determination of~rucial date-
Held : . The data on which the accused is brought before the competent 
authority is date with reference to which the age of the person has to be 
determined-The date of commission of the offence is irrelevant in this regard. 
A 
B 
c 
Section 32-Juvenile-Age-Determination of-Relevant factors to be D 
considered-On the basis of relevant record Magistrate concluded that the 
accused was above 16 years and, therefore, not required to be tried by a 
Juvenile Court-Such finding was upheld by Sessions Court and High Court-
Correctness of-Held: Supreme Court's interference not cal/.;dfor. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 141-Ratio decidendi-Rule of sub silentio--A decision not 
expressed on a conscious consideration of an issue is not the ratio decidendi 
and cannot have binding effect. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Internal Aids-Preamble-It is permissible to look into the Preamble 
if the language is ambiguous so as to determine the legislative intent. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of sub silentio. Words and Phrases: 
"Juvenile" and "neglected juvenile "-Meaning of -In the context of 
S.2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. 
The appellant was arrested in connection with an offence under Section 
69 
E 
F 
G 
H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and was produced before the Additional Chief 
Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), who after recording his statement under Section 
164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, remanded him to juvenile home. 
The appellant claimed that he was a juvenile and, therefore, entitled to 
protection under thE: Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. 
B 
The ACJM dir,ected an enquiry to be held under Section 32 of the Act. 
The appellant was referred to examination by a medical Board. On receipt of 
the report of the Medical Board and on receiving such other evidence as was 
adduced on behalf of the appellant, the ACJM concludes that the appellant 
was above 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, was 
C not required to be tried by a Juvenile Court This finding was upheld by the 
Sessions Court in appeal and the High Court in revision. Hence this appeal 
The following questions arose before this Court :-
Firstly, by reference to which date the age of the appellant is required 
D to be determined for finding out whether he is a juvenile or not. Secondly, 
whether the fmding as to age, as arrived at by the Courts below and maintained 
by the High Court, can be sustained. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. The scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 contemplates 
its applicability coming into play only when the person may appear or be 
brought before the competent authority. A Police Officer or a Magistrate who 
is not empowered to net or cannot act as a competent authority has to merely 
form an opinion guided by the apparent age of the person and in the event of 
forming an opinion that he is a juvenile, he has to forward him to the competent 
F authority at the earlier subject to arrangements for keeping in custody and 
safety of the person having been made for the duration of time elapsing in 
between. The competent authority shall proceed to hold enquiry as to the age 
of that person for determining the same by reference to the date of the 
appearance of the person before it or by reference to the date when the person 
G was brought before it under any of the provisions of the Act It is irrelevant 
what was the age of the person on the date of commission of the offence. 
[78-D; 79-8-C) . 
1.2. The use of the word 'is' at two places in sub-section (1) of Section 
32 of the Act read in conjunction with 'a person brought before it' also 
H suggest that the competent authority is required to record the finding by 
ARNIT DAS v. ST A TE OF BIHAR 
71 
reference to an event in presenting before it, Le. by reference to the date when A 
the person is brought before it and not by reference to a remote event Le. the 
date on which the offence was.committed. (79-D-E) 
2.1. The term 'juvenile justice' before the onset of delinquency may refer 
to social justice; after the onset of deliquency, it refers to justice in the normal 
juridical sense. The Juvenile Justice Act provides for justice after the onset B 
of delinquency. The societal factors leading to the 

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