HEMANT SALUJAQ Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is facing trial in case RC.2 (S)/96/DL-1 under Section 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered on the direction of the High Court of Guwahati, Agartala Bench.

(2.) THE allegations against the Petitioner in brief are that though the Petitioner's name was not forwarded for admission in the category however, the Secretary to the then Chief Minister in conspiracy with the other public servants issued a nomination letter dated 3rd October, 1989 in favour of the Petitioner for his admission in MBBS College, Trichur, Kerala knowing fully well that neither the Petitioner was eligible for the said nomination as nominee of the State of Tripura nor was Mr. Amal Kumar Roy himself authorized or competent to sign and issue the said nomination letter. Thus on the basis of the said fake nomination letter issued by Shri Amal Kumar Roy the Petitioner secured admission in MBBS College, Trichur, Kerala in the academic session 1989-90. During the Trial the Petitioner filed an application on 9th November, 2006 seeking declaration that he was a juvenile and was thus entitled to be proceeded with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'JJ Act').

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to the benefits of Section 14 of the JJ Act, 2000 read with Rule 13 (6) and (7) of the JJ Rules. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Judge erred in holding that Section 20 of the JJ Act would be applicable when a person was below the age of 18 years as on 1st April, 2001 and thus the said Section was not applicable to the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner has already been declared a juvenile as per Section 7 (a) and thus he is entitled to all consequential benefits available thereunder. Further the Juvenile Justice Board vide its two separate orders dated 15th December, 2008 has already terminated the proceedings against two other juveniles who were also implicated in the abovementioned FIR, in view of Section 14 of the JJ Act read with Rule 13 (6) and (7) of the JJ Rules. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2005 (3) SCC 551 has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009 (6) SCALE 695 wherein it has been held that pursuant to Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand(Surpa) there has been an amendment in Section 20 of the Act and Rules and thus the said decision would have no applicability.