LexRAGHBIR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
686
RAGHBIR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
September 8 0 1981
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.]
Haryana Children Act, 1974, sections 2(d}& 21 read with sections 4, 5 & 21
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Whether a person under 16 years of age
and accused of an offence under section 302 Penal Code can get the benefit of the
Haryana Children Act, 1974.
Allowing the appeal, the Court.
HELD : l. The trial of a chlld under the prov1s1ons of the Haryana
Children Act, 1974 for the offence of murder was not barred. The appellant
here was a child within the meaning of that term under clause (d) of section
2 of the Act. (689 A, CJ
2. A perusal 'of section 22 of the Central Children Act, 1960 (Act LX
of 1960) which is in pari materia with section 21 of the Haryana Children Act
and other provisions of the State and Central Children Acts shows that the
procedure for trial, conviction and sentence under the Children Acts are simple,
humane and by Courts manned with persons with knowledge of child psychology
and child welfare; but not so under the Criminal Procedure Codes of 1898 and
1973. The intention of the Stat~ Legislature of Haryana and of the Parliament
in enacting the Children Acts was to make provisions for trial of delinquent
children and dealing with them in accordance with such procedure so that the
delinquent children do not come in contact with accused persons who are not
children and but are hardened criminals.
The purpose undoubtedly was to
reclaim delinquent children and rehabilitate them in such a way that they
become useful citizens later in life.
[691 G-H, 692 A-BJ
3:1. The purpose of the Haryana Legislature as well as of the Parliament
in enacting the Haryana Children Act and the Central Children Act respectively
was to give separate treatment to delinquent children in trial, conviction and
punishment for offences including offences punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. [693 C·D]
3:2. Section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not 'a specific
provision to the contrary' within the meaning of section 5 of the Code the inten~
tion of the Parliament was not to exclude the trial of delinquent children for
offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, inasmuch as section 27
does not contain any expression to the effect "notwithstanding anything con·
tained in any Children Act passed by any State Legislature". Parliament
"I
--
•
RAGHBIR v. HARYANA (Baharul Islam J.)
687
certainly was not unaware of the existence of the Haryana Children Act coming
A
into force a month earlier or the Central Children Act coming into force nearly
fourteen years earlier. What section 27 contemplates is that a child under
the age of 16 years may be tried by a Chief Judicial Magistrate or any court
specially empowered under the Children Act, 1960. It is an enabling provision
and has not affected the Haryana Children Act in the trial of delinquent
children for offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
[693 C, D·G]
-~
4:1. If there be any conflict between any provisions of the Act and the
~
Criminal Procedure Act, in view of Article 254{1) of the Constitution, the
prov1s1on of the Haryana Children Act repugnant to any provision of the
Criminal Procedure Code will be void to the extent of repugnancy. (692 B·C]
4:2. Criminal Procedure appears in Item 2 of the Concurrent List of the
C
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. One of the circumstances under :which
repugna11cy between the law made by the State and the law made by the Parlia-
ment may result is whether the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in
the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable.
In the case in hand the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and
the Haryana Children Act can co-exist. Their spheres of operation are different.
[693 G-H, 694 Al
0
Dev Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of Madhya Prad.sh, 1978 Criminal Law
Journal 585 Madhya Pradesh, overruled.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 90
Of 1981.
From the Judgment and Order Dated 7th August 1980 of
the High Court uf Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!.
Appeal No. 909 of 1979.
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.
K.G. Bhagat and R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BAHARUL !SLAM, J.
The que•tion for consideration in this
E
F
appeal by special leave is whether aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.