PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1019 · Decided: 02-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' , 
PRATAP SINGH 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA, B.P. SINGH, H.K. SEMA AND B 
S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986-Sections 2(h), 3, 18, 26 and 32 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000-Sections C 
2(k), 20 and 69. 
Juvenile offender-Age-Determination-Reckoning date-Held: The 
reckoning date for determining the age of the Juvenile offender is the date of 
offence and not the date when he is produced before the Authority/Court. 
D 
2000 Act-Applicability of-To the cases initiated under 1986 Act, 
pending on the date of enforcement of 2000 Act-Held: The Act of 2000 
would be applicable to such cases only when the accused had not attained 18 
years of age on the date of its enforcement-Model Rules framed by Central 
Government-Rule 62-United National Standard Minimum Rules for E 
Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985. 
The questions for determination in the present appeal before the 
Constitution Bench were : 
1. What would be the reckoning date in determining the age of p 
juvenile offender, viz., date when produced in a Court, as had.been held 
by this Court in Amit Das v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488 or the date 
on which the offence was committed as had been held in Umesh Chandra 
v. State of Rajasthan, (1982( 2 SCC 202? 
2. Whether Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, G 
2000 would be applicable to the case, proceeding whereof was initiated 
under Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and was pending on the date of 
enforcement of the Act of 2000? 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
1019 
H 
A 
B 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005) I S.C.R. 
HELD : Per Sema, J. (for himself N Santosh Hegde, S.N Variava and 
B. P. Singh, JJ.) : 
1.1. The reckoning date for the determination of the age of the 
juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced 
before the Authority or in the Court. ( 1039-G I 
1.2. The whole object of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 
Children) Act, 2000 is to provide for the care, protection, treatment, 
development and rehabilitation of neglected delinquent juveniles. It is a 
beneficial legislation aimed at to make available the benefit of the Act to 
C the neglected or delinquent juveniles. The interpretation of the Statute of 
beneficial legislation must be to advance the cause of legislation to the 
benefit for whom it is made and not to frustrate the intendment of the 
legislation. l 1031-0-E I 
1.3. The distinction between the definition of 'delinquent juvenile' 
D under Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 
of Children) Act, 2000 is that in 1986 Act "juvenile in conflict with law" 
is absent. The definition in 1986 Act is referable to an offence said to have 
been committed by him. It is the date of offence that he was in conflict 
with law. When a juvenile is produced before the competent Authority 
and or Court he has not committed an offence on that date, but he was 
E brought before the Authority for the alleged offence which he has been 
found to have committed. Therefore, what was implicit in 1986 Act has 
been made explicit in 2000 Act. (1031-F-AJ 
F 
1.4. It cannot be said that the use of the word is in two places of 
Section 32 of 1986 Act suggests that for determination of age of juvenile 
the date of production would be reckoning date as the inquiry with regard 
to his age begins from the date he is brought before the Court and not 
otherwise. The definition of delinquent juvenile means a juvenile who has 
been found to have committed an offence. The word is employed in Section 
32 is referable to a junnile who is said to have committed an offence on 
G the date of the occurrence. The word is has been used in more than one 
place in Section 18of1986 Act also. Often than not, an offender is arrested 
immediately after an offence is alleged to have been committed or some 
t;me even arrested on the spot. This would also show that the arrest and 
release on bail and custody of juveniles, the reckoning date of a juvenile 
is the date of an offence and not the date of production. Furthermore, 
H Section 32 of 1986 Act also does not envisage the production of a juvenile 
j 
PRAT AP SINGH v. STATE OF .IHARKHAND 
1021 
in the Court. 11032-E-F; 1033-D-Fl 
1.5. A conjoint reading of Sections 3 and 26, preamble, aims and 
objects of 1986 Act leaves no matter of doubt that the legislature intended 
to provide protection, treatme

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