LexBHIM @ UTTAM GHOSH versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 175 BHIM @ UTTAM GHOSH V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 2163 of 2010) NOVEMBER 12, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: ss.2(k), 2(1), 7A, 20, 49 - Held: Persons below the afje of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juveni/ity is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on A B c or before the date of the commencement of the 2000 Act and 0 they were undergoing sentences upon being convicted - In the instant case, appellant was convicted u/s.307, /PC - His age at the time of commission of offence was about 15 years, therefore, he is held to be a juvenile, within the meaning of s.2(1) of the amended 2000 Act - Juvenile Justice (Care and E Protection of Children) Rules 2007 - rr.12 and 98 - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 307. Claim of juvenility - Relevant date for determining age of the person claiming to be juvenile - Held: Would be the date on which the offence was committed and not the date on F which he was produced before the competent authority or in the court. s.20, Explanation - Determination of juvenility- Held: In all pending cases, which include not only trials but even G subsequent proceedings by way of revision or appeal, etc., the juvenility has to be determined in terms of clause (/) of s. 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be a juvenile on or before 1-4-2001, when the 2000 Act came into force, and the 175 H 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A provisions of the said Act would apply as if the said provision had been in force for all purposes and for all material times when the alleged offence was committed - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. 8 s.7A(1), proviso - Claim of juvenility - Held: Can be raised before any court and has to be recognised at any stage even after disposal of the case and such claim is required to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the 2000 Act and the rules framed thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of the C commencement of the Act - The effect of the proviso is that a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of the offence would also be entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act as if the provisions of s. 2(k) of the Act, which defines 'Juvenile" or "child" to mean a person D who has not completed eighteenth year of age, ·had always been in existence even during the operation of the 1986 Act - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 - rr.12 and 98. E s. 2(1) - 'Juvenile in conflict with law" - Meaning of - Held: Means a 'Juvenile" who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. s. 20 - Special provision in respect of pending cases - F Held: If the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward him to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing orders in accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. G ss. 15, 16 - Order - Conviction uls. 307 /PC - Appellant, juvenile at the time of commission of offence, has attained 42 years of age - Held: In view of his age, it would not be conducive for the environment of Special Home particularly H to the interest of other juveniles housed therein, to send the SHIM @ UTTAM GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST 177 BENGAL appellant there or to keep him at some other place, as A postulated in s. 16 for the remaining period - Therefore, while sustaining his conviction, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 307. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2005) 3 SCC B 551; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP. (2006) 5 SCC 584 - relied on. Case Law Reference: (2005) 3 sec 551 c2oos) 5 sec 584 relied on relied on Para 8 Para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2163 of 2010. c From the Judgment & Order daed 01.12.2009 of the High D Court at Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 77 of 1986. R.S. Suri, Rana Mukherjee, Abhijit Sengupta, Nitish Massey, M. lndarani for the Appellant. Satish Vig for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted. E F 2. Challenge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.