GAGAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. D. Chaturvedi, J. This Criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15-2-2005 passed by Sri V. P. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S. T. No. 949 of 2003 whereby he has rejected the revisionist's application for declaring him as juvenile.

(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly that revisionist Gagan Gupta, an accused in Sessions Trial No. 949 of 2003 under Section 302 I. P. C. , moved an application dated 19-6-2004 stating therein that his date of birth was 15-7-1982; that the occurrence of murder took place on 18-10-1998; that he was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence and that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 he was entitled to be declared as juvenile. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge, seized of the case, rejected the revisionist's application on the ground that the revisionist was 16 years and three months old at the time of commission of the offence and that the Juvenile Act of 1986 (Prevailing at that time) provided the protection only to those, who were not above the age of 16 years on the date of occurrence. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the accused revisionist has filed this revision.

(3.) THE learned A. G. A has relied upon the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Vijendra Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. , reported in 2005 (2) JIC 102 (SC ). THE Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 13 of the said judgment: "section 20 of the 2000 Act would, therefore, be applicable when a person is below the age of 18 years as on 1-4-2001. For the purpose of attracting Section 20 of the said Act, it must be established that (i) on the date of coming into force the proceedings in which the petitioner was accused was pending and (ii) on that day he was below the age of 18 years. For the purpose of the said Act, both the aforementioned conditions are required to be fulfilled. By reason of the provisions of the 2000 Act, the protection granted to a juvenile has only been extended but such extension is not absolute but oily a limited one. It would apply strictly when the conditions precedent therefor as contained in Section 20 or Section 64 are fulfilled. "