UMESH CHANDRA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 02-04-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

583 
A 
UMESH CHANDRA 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
April 2, 198111 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, D.A. 0BSAI AND 
A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J 
'' 
Rajasthan Children Act, 1970-Material date for determining sge, of 
delinquent-Is it date of commission of offence or date of trial,? 
Tndi~n Evidence Art 1872-S. 35-Relevance of entry in_ schQal reCDrd for 
proof of age-Should the record be kept by public officer-?· 
The Rajasthan.Children Act, 1970, provides that any person below tho 
age or i6 years should be presumed to be a child and that a' delinquent child 
sboiild be fried by a:Children's court in accord_ancc with the procedure laid 
down -thCrein. 
The appellant was charged
0 
under ss. 364 and 302, I.P.C., in conneCtion 
with an occurrence that took_ place in Tonk district on March 12, 1973. A 
preliminary objection that the Sessions Judge was not competent to try the case 
:of the ap·pellant as he was a child under the provisions of the Children Act was 
overruled by the trial court, 
The revision filed by the appellant again~t_-the decision of' th~ trial court 
was dismissed by the High Court which held that the Children Act was not 
applicable to the appellant as that Act had no, been enforced in Tonk district 
on the date of the occurrence. The High Court further held that the appellant 
had failed to prove that be was below the age of 16 years. 
On being directed by thi$- Court to ascertain the actual date of birth, the 
High Court held that the date of birth of the appellant was September 22, 1956; 
and. therefore, he was over 16 years on the date of the occurrence. The High 
Court rejected the documents produced from the first two schools attended by 
the appellant which showed his date of birth to be June 22, 1957, for the reason 
that those documents had not been k-ept or made by a pubJic officer; it relied on 
an affidavit furnished by the father of the appellant while admitting him to the 
third school in which the date of birth had been changed to September 22, 1956. 
The explanation of the appellant's father that the date of birth had been changed 
to fulfil the requirement of age under the Rajasthan Board of Secondary 
Regulations to enable the appellant to appear in the Higher Secondary Examina-
tion at the appropriate time wilS not accepted. 
i\llowlog tho appeal, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982] .3 s.c.Jl. 
HELD: I. (a) The relevant date for applicability of the Rajasthan 
Children Act, 1970 so far as the age of the accused, who claims to be a child, 
is ·concerned, is the date of the occurrence and not the date of the trial as is 
clear from the provisions of ss. 3 and 26 of the Act. [594 CJ 
(b) At the tiine of the occurrence, the appellant was undoubtedly a child 
within the provisions of the Act. [592 H] 
• 
(c) The question whether the appellant could be tried as a child if he 
had become more than 16 years by the time the case went up to the court, does 
not survive as the Act has now been enforced in the entire State. A combiri'ed 
reading of ss. 3 and 26 clearly shows that the statute takes care of contingencies 
where proceedings in respeci of a child were pending in any court on the date 
on which the Act came into force. Seclioo 26 in terms lays down that the court 
should proceed with the case but after having found that the child bas committed 
the offence it is debarred from passing a:ny sentence but is obliged to forward 
the child. to the Children's court for passing orders in accordance with the 
Act. [592 H; 593 A; 593 F-G] 
(d) The judgment of the Sessions Judge as affirmed by the High Court be 
set aside and the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, be directed to try the 
accused and if he gave a finding that the accused was-.. guilty, he shaJI forward 
the accused to the ChHdren's court for receiving sentence in accordance with 
, the provisions of the Act. [594 E] 
2. There is no legal requirement under s. 35 of the Evidence Act that 
the public or other official book should be kept only by a public officer; all that 
is necessary is that the document should be maintained regularly by a person 
E 
whose duty it is to maintain the document. (588 G; 589 CJ 
F 
G 
Mohd. lkram Husaain v. State of U.P., [1964) 5 S.C.R. 86, 100 & Abdul 
Majidv. Bharga1•am, A.l.R.19R3 Ker.18 referred to. 
The Rajasthan Children Act being a piece of social legislation is meant 
for the protection of infants who committ criminal offences_ and, therefore, its 
provisions should be 1ibe

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