ROHTAS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 31-07-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
l 
151 
ROHTAS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 
July 31, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KA!LASAM, JJ.] 
Crinzinal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 4 
and 
5-Scope of-Haryana 
Children Act, 1974 Sections 4, 29-B-Scope of. 
The appellant was charged with an offence under Section 302 
l.P.C. 
B 
After the recording of evidence was concluded, it was pointed out that the 
sessions Judge bad no jurisdiction to try the appellant as the appellant hap4 
c 
pencd to fall under thie provisions of the Haryana Children Act, 1974. 
On 
remand, the }.1agistrate found the appellant was a child and proceeded to try him 
under the Haryana. Act. 
In a revision petition filed by the brother of the 
deceas'ed, the High Court held that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure 
Code 1973 prevailed over the provisions of the Haryana Act. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The High Court was in error in holding that the Code of 1973 
over-ruled the Haryana Act and that the appella.nt should have be'en tried 
u,_1der the Code 1973. 
The view taken by the Sessions Judge on this point 
was correct and the case of the app'ellant should have been referred to the 
Magistrate concerned for trial in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana 
D 
• 
T. 
Act. [1540-HJ 
E 
Section 5 carves out a clear exception to the provisions of the trial of an 
offence under any sp'ecial or local laW for the time being in force or any 
special jurisdiction or power conferred or any :;pecial form of procedure pres-
cribed by any other law for the time being in for'Ce. 
The Haryana Act woo 
in force when· th'e Code of 1973 was passed and therefore the Haryana Act 
far from being inconsistent with s. 5 of the Code of 1973 appears to be 
F 
fully protected by the provisions of s. 5 of the Code of 1973. 
[154E-GJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 170 
of 1979. 
'• 
Appeal by Spocial Leave from the Judgment ahd Order dated 
G 
10-11-1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. 
No. 4352-M of 1970. 
H. D. Hardy, D. D. Sharma, Vasu Deo Sharma and Subhash C. 
Mittal, for the Appellant. 
H. S. Marwah and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No. 1. 
A. N. Mulla and S. K. Gambhir for Respondent No. 2. 
11-475SC!/79 
B 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{1980] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F AZAL ALI, J. This appeal by Special L>oave is directed against a 
judgment of the Punjab and Harya'na High Court dated 10th Novem-
ber, 1978 by which the High Court accepted the revision filed before 
it and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and directed him to 
conclude the trial according to law. 
The points in controversy arise in the following circumstances 
The appellant Rohtas was being prosecuted under Section 302 
of the I'ndian P.onal Code for having caused the death of one Subhash 
on 23rd December, 1974. The trial proceeded before the Sessions 
Judge and after the evidence was concluded the case was adjourned to 
the 5th May, 1978 for recording the statement of the appellant. 
At 
this stage it appears to have been pointed out to the Se_ssions Judge 
that he had no jurisdiction to try the appellant as the appellant 
happened to fall within the provisions of the Harya'na Children Act, 
197 4, for short, to be referred to as the Haryana Act. 
Thereafter 
the Sessions Judge remitted the matter to the Committing Magistrate 
directing him to hold an enquiry as to whether or not the appellant 
Rohtas was a child within the meaning of the provisions 
of 
the 
Haryana Act and after arriving at a findi'ng that the appellant was a 
child, the Magistrate proceeded to try the case in accordance with 
the provisions of the Haryana Act. 
The brothet of the deooased 
filed a revision before the High Court for quashing the proceedings 
against the appellant on the ground that tho SesS>vns Judge and the 
Committing Magistrate were wrong i'n holding that the case of the 
appellant fell within the purview of Section 4 of the Haryana Act. 
The contention raised by the Revision Petitioner was based on the fact 
that although the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, hereinafter to be 
referred to as the Code of 1973, contained provisions some of which 
were directly in conflict with the Haryana Act a'nd other Central Acts, 
therefore, the Code of 1973 would prevail and the State Acts would 
stand over-ruled by virtue of the provisions of Article 254 of the 
Constitution of India. This argument appears to have been accepted 
by the 

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