S D PAWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is accused No. 3 in S. C. No. 327/2005 and 328/2005 on the file of the principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, registered for offences punishable under section 395 of the Act. He was aged above 16 years on the date of each offence. Since he had already attained the age of Sixteen years then, he could not be considered as a Juvenile as per law then in force i. e. , the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, (referred to in this order as 1986 Act for the sake of convenience ). By the time charge sheet was filed, new Act i. e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (referred to in this order as new Act No. 56/2000 for the sake of convenience) came into force. Under the new Act, the definition of the, word Juvenile means a person, who has not completed eighteenth year of age. The short point that has therefore arisen is whether such an accused who was not a Juvenile under the 1986 Act can be considered as a Juvenile in conflict with law under the new Act or 2000 Act.

(2.) ON 5. 3. 01, there was a dacoity in the godown of K. S. F. C. , Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore, and more than fifty sewing machines kept in that godown were taken away and with regard to that, a complaint was registered against unknown persons. Similar dacoity was committed a few days prior to 12-12-2000. 49 such Sewing Machines stolen from that godown were recovered in chennai. It is stated that in the house of one Smt. Geetha, Kottigepalya, Bangalore, 8 Sewing machines were recovered. This revision petitioner is stated to be the son of the said Geetha and it is alleged that he was involved in the said dacoity. He was arrested on 16. 4. 01. He has been charge sheeted along with other accused for having committed the dacoity and theft of sewing machines. The present revision petition has been filed claiming that since on the date of the alleged offence, he was aged only 16 years 5 months, and was a juvenile in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000, charged sheet could not have been placed against him along with other accused before a Criminal Court.

(3.) IT is submitted by Sri J. Chandrashekharaiah, Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that if it was the intention of the prosecution to prosecute the said boy, it could have been done by placing a charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the new Act i. e. , Act No. 56/2000.