STATE Vs. HARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court-I, Davangere in S. C. No. 29 of 2004 seeking decision of this Court on a question of law as well as interpretation of certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'act No. 56 of 2000') vis-a-vis Section 27 of the Cr. P. C. In view of the difficulty that has arisen to apply in view of the principles mentioned in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna v State of Kamataka.

(2.) THE respondent-Harshad, a juvenile has been charge-sheeted along with others for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the IPC. In the charge-sheet filed by the CPI, Davangere, the respondent-juvenile has been ranked as accused 9. As he was found to be juvenile, hi's case was separated from S. C. No. 6 of 2003 and given a new number as S. C. No. 29 of 2004. Thereafter, the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Davangere took cognizance of the offences and registered a case against the respondent-Juvenile as Juvenile Case No. 11 of 2003 and forwarded the same to the Juvenile Justice Board at shimoga, constituted as per notification issued by the State Government dated 25-7-2003 under the provisions of the Act No. 56 of 2000. The juvenile Justice Board sitting at Shimoga, presumably thinking that the offences were triable by a Court of Sessions committed the case to the sessions Court, Davangere as per its order dated 19-3-2004 and thereafter, the same was renumbered as S. C. No. 29 of 2004 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Davangere. After establishment of fast Track Court, the same has been transferred to the Fast Track court wherein it is pending.

(3.) THE Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, noticing that as the juvenile Justice Board had already been constituted and in fact as it had taken up the case, but had committed the respondent to take his trial only in view of one of the offences exclusively triable by a Court of sessions, directed the State as well as the respondent and his Counsel to submit their views in this regard with an intention to find out the exact legal position. Both the sides relied upon the following pronouncements: