LexBABLOO PASI versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'·~
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 161
BABLOO PASI
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008)
OCTOBER 3, 2008
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
·Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000; Ss. 49, 53 and 54:
A
B
S.53 rlw S.54 - Revisional Jurisdiction - Exercise of-
C
Held: High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, can
not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording
him a reasonable opportunity of being heard - Complainant
was impleaded as party respondent and prejudiced by the
impugned order passed by the High Court declaring the ac- · D
cused Juvenile - Hence, High Court erred in reversing the
order passed by the Board without affording him an opportu-·
nity of being heard - 'Audi alteram partem' - Applicability of -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S.401(2).
"
S.49/Rule 22(5) of Jharkhand Juvenile Justice Rules -
E ·
Juvenile - Age - Determinatiol) of - Accused husband alleg-
edly committed offences u/ss. 304B and s. 306 /PC - Claim of
accused that he is a Juvenile - Held: The Act does not lay
down any fixed norms for determination of age of a person -
Board has mechanically accepted the entry in the voter list as
F
conclusive and determined the age of accused without appre-
ciating its probative value in terms of s. 35 of the Evidence Act
- Order of the Board falls short of proper inquiry as envisaged
under s. 49 of the Act - Thus, the Board determined the age of
the accused in a casual manner ignoring the principles of law, G
on the subject - High Court erred in accepting the opinion of
Medical Board as conclusive in terms of r. 22(5)(iv) of the Rules
without appreciating requisite evidence determining the age
of the accused and holding him Juvenile - Hence, impugned
161
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A
judgment not only suffers from the basic infirmity of being viola-
tive of principles of natural justice, it cannot be sustained on merits
as well - Matter remitted to Chief Judicial Magistrate to deter-
mine the age of the, accused as on the date of occurrence in
accordance with the law, as enunciated and to be dealt accord-
s ingly - Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chil-
dren) Rules, 2003; r.22(5) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - S.35 -
Principl~s of Natural Justice - Compliance of - Jharkhand Ju-
venile Justice {Care andProteciton of Children) Rules, 2003 -
R. 22 (v) - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 3048 and 306.
C ·
Respondent No.2, accused was apprehended for
having committed offences under Sections 304B and 306
of the Indian Penal _Code, 1860. When he was produced
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he claimed himself
to be a "juvenile" and prayed protection and privileges
D under the .Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chil-
dren) Act, 2000. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the
accused to produce evidence/certificate in support of his
claim, which he failed to do. The Magistrate without re-
cording any opinion, whether ttie accused was a Juve-
E nile or not, referred him to the Juvenile Justice Board. The
Board referred him to a Medical Board for· examination
a!"d determination of his age. The Board concluded that
the accused was above eighteen years of age on the date
of occurrence; that he was not a juvenile and, therefore,
F not required to be dealt with under the Act. Accordingly,
the Child Rehabilitation Centre was directed to transfer
the accused to the regular jail with a dfrection to its Su-
perintendent to produce him before the Court of Chief
Ju<:Ucial Magi~trate. The accused challenged the order
G . passed by the Board by filing a Revision petition in the
High Co-urt. Quashing the order of the Board, the High
r
;
Court held the accused juvenile observing that the Board
_.,.,
had. ignored the opinion of the Medical Board in deter-
mining t.he age of the accused between 17-18 years.
H Hence, the present appeal.
'
BABLOO PASI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
163
&ANR.
J-
-
1
Allowing the appeal, the Court
A
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court as also by the
Board are unsustainable in law as well on facts. (Para-7)
[170,D]
2.1 Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Pro-
B
tection of Children) Act, 2000 confers on the High Court
the revisional jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to the legality
or propriety of any order passed by the competent au-
thority or Court of Sessions. From a bare reading of pro-
viso to the Section, it is plainExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.