LexSUDESH KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 146
+--
A
SUDESH KUMAR
.... ,
II.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2008)
B
JANUARY 29, 2008
[P.P. NAOLEKAR AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
+
s. 6 - Date of applicability- Whether is date of imposition
c of punishment or is the date of commission of offence - Held:
Per Thakkar, J: Question left open - Per Naolekar J: Held: It is
date of imposition of punishment by trial court and not the date
of commission of offence.
D
s. 6 - Claim of benefit under- On the ground that on the
date of commission of offence the accused was below 21 years
of age - Held: By the court-- Accused not entitled to the benefit
- Per Thakker, J. - In the facts of the case accused failed to
prove that he was less than 21 years of age on the date of
commission of offence, and such plea not permissible to be
E raised for the first time before Supreme Court - Per Naolekar,
J. - Accused was not less than 21 years on the date of
imposition of punishment - Raising of such plea for the first
time before Supreme Court not permissible - Penal Code, s.
392 r/w s. 34 - Practice and Procedure.
F
Precedent - reliance on decision passed on a provision
of different _statute - Held: Decision made on a provision of
¥'
different statute will be of no relevance unless underlying
objects of the two statutes are in pari materia.
G
Appellant-accused, alongwith three accused was
charged u/s 392 r/w s. 34 IPC for having robbed three
persons. Trial court convicted them for the offence
charged. Conviction was confirmed by High Court.
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that he
H
146
-~
SUDESH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
147
!'
was entitled to benefit u/s. 6 of the Probation of Offenders A
Act, 1958, as on the date the offence was committed, he
was below 21 years of age. This aspect is evident from
the age recorded in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement and from
the transfer certificate issued by Principal of the school.
It was further contended that date of applicability of s. 6 B
should be the date of commission of offence in view of
the judgment of this court while considering the pari
+
materia provisions under Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
State contended that the appellant was not entitled c
to the benefit as there was no reliable material, the
question was not raised before the courts below; and that
the relevant date of applicability of s. 6 of the Act is the
date on which sentence is passed and not the date when
offence was committed.
Dismissing the appeal, the court
D
HELD: Per P.P. Naolekar, J. 1.1 Section 6 of Probation
--{
~
of Offenders Act, 1958 would apply to the accused who is
under 21 years of age on the date o.f imposition of
punishment by the trial court and not on the date of E
commission of the offence. That being the case, even if
the age of the accused is held to be below 20 years on
the date of commission of the offence, on the date of
delivery of judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by trial court he was more than 21 years of age and thus F
~
was not entitled to the benefit under Section 6 of the Act.
"""'
[Para 16 & 17] [158-C-E]
111111"'
Ramji Missar and Anr. v. State of Bihar 1963 Supp. 2
SCR 745 - relied on.
Dau/at Ram v. The State of Haryaya 1972 (2) SCC 626, G
I
""'
Satyabhan Kishore and Anr. v. The State of Bihar 1972 (3)
sec 350 - distinguished.
Masarullah v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1982 (3) SCC 458 -
held per in curium.
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 2 S.C.R.
~-
A
·1.2 That apart, the question of applicability of the Act
"'.
has been raised for the first time while filing the special
leave petition. The accused has not claimed ben·efit under
Section 6 of the Act during the trial or before the High
Court. Only material which was placed before the
B Sessions Judge or t~e High Court is the statement
recorded of the accused appellant under Section 313
Cr.P.C. wherein the age of the accused was given as 20
years. [Para 18] [158 F-G]
't
Yaduraj Singh and Ors. v. State of UP 1976 (4) SCC
c 310 - relied on.
2. The object and purpose of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 for applying the relevant provisions
to the accused are different and cannot be said in pari
D materia with the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The
Court would not construe a Section of a statute with
reference to that of another statute unleExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.