BALU @ BAKTHVATCHALU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 12-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 756 
BALU @ BAKTHVATCHALU 
II. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Age of delinquent juvenile 
- Determination of, on the date of commission of offence -
C Appeal before Supreme Court - Trial judge directed to hold 
enquiry as regards the age of juvenile on the date of 
commission of offence - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection · 
of Children) Act, 2000 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 
of Children) Amendment Act, 2006. 
D 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the appellant who was prosecuted 
for commission of offence of murder under section 302 
IPC was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of incident. 
E 
Allowing the appeal and issuing directions to trial 
judge, the Court 
HELD: In the instant· case, the trial judge should be 
directed to hold the enquiry in regard to the age of the 
appellant on the date of commission of the offence and in 
F the event it is found that the appellant was juvenile within 
the meaning of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 
1986, he should proceed with the matter in accQrdance 
with law. [Para 16) [765-8) 
Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand 2005 (3) SCC 551; 
G Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab 2005 (12) SCC 615; 
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U.P. 2006 (5) SCC 584; 
Jitendra Ram vs. State of Jharkhand 1006 (9) SCC 428 -
relied on. 
H 
756 
-. 
; 
' 
( 
BALU@ BAKTHVATCHALU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
757 
[S.B. SINHA, J.] 
Amit Das vs. State of Bihar 2000 (5) SCC 488-
A 
referred to·. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 295 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2005 of s 
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 
724/2001. 
Rana Mukherjee, Anand, lndrani, lshit Saharia and Abhijit 
Sengupta for the Appellant. 
c 
V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle, S. Prabu 
Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. Appellant was prosecuted for commission of an offence 
under Section 302 of the India Penal Code. The occurrence 
took place on 20th April, 1998. He was arrested on the charge 
of murder of one Ramu Maistry on 8th May, 1998. Upon 
completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against E 
1 
him on 30th November, 1998. The learned trial court delivered 
a judgment on 28th April, 2000. In the said judgment his age 
was shown to be '18'. An application was filed for sending him 
to Borstal School in terms of Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu 
Borstal Schools Act, which was refused. An appeal preferred 
F 
by the appellant before the High Court has been dismissed by 
reason of the impugned judgment. 
This Court issued a limited notice as to whether the 
appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident. 
3. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf 
of the appellant, submitted that in view of the materials placed 
on records, an inquiry should have been initiated as regards 
the age of the appellant. 
G 
4. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to 
H 
758 
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S .. C,.R. 
A 
as "the Act" was applicable when the incident took place, In 
terms whereof, a juvenile, under Section 2(h) was defined as a 
boy who has ·not attained the age of 16 years. 
5. The Parliament, however, enacted, th~ Juvenile Justice 
(Care· and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It came into force 
B with effect from 1st April, 2001. 
c 
D 
E 
6. Section 2(k) defines 'juvenile' to mean a person who 
has not c~mpleted eighteen years of age. 
7. Section 20 of the Act reads as under:-
"20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.-
. 
Notwithstanding anything contained in· this Act, all 
proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court 
in any area on the date on.which this Act comes into force 
in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act 
had not been passed ~nd if the court finds that the juvenile 
has committed an offr:;!nce, it shall record such finding and 
instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, 
forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders 
in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions 
of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this 
Act that a juvenile has committed the offence." 
8. A question was raised as to whether the date on 

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