IN RE: STATE OF KERALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference is by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad. Fourth accused in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 moved Crl.M.P.No.583 of 1991 stating that he did not attain the age of 16 as on. 23-12-1987, the date of occurrence. Learned Sessions Judge states in his order that he (4th accused was a juvenile and hence as per S.24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Act 53 of 1986) (for short 'the Act') since no juvenile can be charged with or tried for any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile, fourth accused cannot be tried along with the other accused persons and that the order of committal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mannarghat is not in accordance with law. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, His Lordship staling that the decision in State of Kerala v. Sophiya Rose ( 1988 (2) KLT 585 ) is doubted by a learned Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench; that is how this matter came up before us.

(3.) In Sophiya Rose's case (1988 (2) KLT 585) it was held that the crucial date in order to decide whether the accused is to be tried by the Children's Court or not is the date on which the offence was committed and not the date on which the "accused is placed for trial."