STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in exercise of his power under S. 395(2) Cr.P.C.

(2.) The relevant facts as seen from the order of the learned Sessions Judge are that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tiptur, committed the accused Prakash son of Rajanna, aged 15 years, of Ballekatte Village, Tiptur Taluk, to the Court of Session to take trial for having committed an offence punishable under S. 376 IPC which is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court. The case was registered in the Sessions Court as SC No. 62/81. The Public Prosecutor and Sri K. V. Subramanyaswamy the learned Advocate appeared on behalf the State and the accused, before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge found that the charge-sheet itself described the accused as aged 15 years and therefore a child within the meaning of the provisions of the Karnataka Children Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter, he probed into the matter by directing the Public Prosecutor to produce the certified extract of the admission register relating to the accused from the school in which he was studying. That extract was produced. It was signed by the Head Master, Sri Mallikarjuna High School, Kuppaiu, Tiptur Taluk. That showed that the accused was studying in VIII standard during the years 1980-81 and 81-82 and his date of birth as per the school admission rep gister was 20-6-1966. The Sessions Judge concluded that the accused had not completed 16 years of age even on the date on which he looked into the matter after receiving the certified extract apart from the fact being that he was below 16 years of age on the date of the offence. He concluded that the accused was a juvenile and therefore was to be tried by a Juvenile Court in view of the provisions of the Act. On finding these facts and the further fact that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumkur, is the Juvenile Court concerned, he after applying the principle laid down by this Court in State of Mysore v, Hanumantha (1) and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision in Raghbir v. State of Haryana (2), concluded that he himself has no jurisdiction to try the case against the accused who was a Juvenile and therefore the committal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tiptur, in C.C. No. 920/81, was to be quashed. After having concluded so, he has applied S. 395(2) Cr.P.C. and made a reference to this Court requesting this Court to quash the committal order of the JMFC., Tiptur

(3.) Sec. 395(2) Cr.P.C. cannot apply to such a case-because the ingrer dients are not satisfied on the face of it, particularly when the law on the point has been settled in the aforementioned decisions and other decisions which we do not consider it necessary to cite as it would amount to repetition of the principle that has been well settled.