BHARATHANATYAM ALIAS DISCO ALIAS NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. Sivaji, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. S. Shanmughavelayudham, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State in both the petitions; the Court made the following order :- Both these original petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the petitioner and the respondent are the same and the ground urged is identical.

(2.) Petitioner Bharathanatyam alias Disco alias Nagarajan, is the sole accused in CC. No. 2547 of 1989 and CC. No. 2547 of 1989, both pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai. Petitioner is alleged to have committed theft. (Snatching of gold chains from the necks of 1 1/2 and 31/2 years old children). Petitioner preferred Ctiminal M. P. Nos. 6483 of I990 and 6484 of 1990 before the trial Magistrate to hold him as a juvenile, since his date of birth was 25-4-1974 and he had completed only 15 years and 2 months and 28 days at or about the time when the alleged offences were committed. He further pleaded, that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986 Mad LW Cri 440) : (1986 Cri LJ 1736), since the final report had not been laid within six months, the pending prosecution should not be permitted to survive any longer. The plea made by the petitioner was negatived by the trial Magistrate, which led to the petitioner preferring Crl. R.P. No.8 of 1991 and Crl. R.P. No. 7 of 1991 respectively before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, challenging the sustainability of the orders passed by Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. The order passed by the revisional court is rather cryptic, which reads as follows: "Trial Court order perused. I find no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Revision petition is dismissed." Petitioner, still aggrieved, had thought it fit to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to have the injustice caused to him remedied.

(3.) Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in each one of these cases, submitted that under sub-section 2(h) of Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile meant a boy who had not attained the age of 16 years. Admittedly, petitioner had not attained 16 years for, even according to the learned Magistrate, petitioner was aged only 15 years 2 months and 28 days. Petitioner, therefore, ought to have been treated as a juvenile offender. He then contended that in view of the law laid down in Sheela Barse's case (1986 Mad LW (Cri) 440) : (1986 Cri LJ 1736), referred to earlier, if a final report had not been laid within three months against the juvenile after completion of investigation and further if the trial did not stand disposed of within a period of six months thereafter, prosecution against the juvenile will have to be necessarily quashed.