SHEO MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case under Section 302, I.P.C. has been committed to the Court of Session. There some accused raised objection that they were juveniles under. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and they should not be tried by Sessions Court. The Sessions Court rejected that application. So they have approached this Court through an application in revision.

(2.) The definition of 'juvenile' is given in Sec. 2(h) of the Act. According to this definition 'juvenile' means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. The definition does not say that this age is to be seen on the date of occurrence. Sec.20 deals with inquiry by Juvenile Court against juvenile offenders. It says that where a juvenile accused of an offence appears or is produced before a Juvenile Court, it shall make an inquiry. Thus it appears that a Juvenile Court proceeds when a juvenile appears or is produced before it. It means that the person produced should be juvenile on the date when he is produced before the Juvenile Court. However, Sec. 3 provides that where an inquiry has been initiated against a juvenile and during the course of such inquiry the juvenile ceases to be such, that is he crossed the age limit prescribed for being a juvenile then the inquiry may be continued in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a juvenile. This means that once the Juvenile Court has initiated an inquiry, the inquiry will proceed and it will be of no consequence that the juvenile has crossed the prescribed age. So it appears that in order to get benefit of this Act a person should be juvenile when he is produced before a Juvenile Court and it will not do that he was juvenile on the date of of occurrence though he is not juvenile when he is produced before the Juvenile Court once inquiry is initiated it will continue even though the person has crossed the age of being juvenile.

(3.) In Sec. 3. it has been said that the inquiry may be continued. The word 'inquiry' has not been defined in this Act. It has been said in the last clause of Sec. 2 that all words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Criminal Procedure Code shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Code. In Sec. 2(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code the word 'inquiry' has been defined as meaning an inquiry conducted under Criminal Procedure Code by a Magistrate or a Court. So, normally it can be argued that in Sec. 3 of the Act the inquiry means an inquiry under Criminal Procedure Code. If this meaning is accepted then it will mean that Sec. 3 says that if an inquiry is initiated under Criminal Procedure Code against a juvenile then that inquiry may be continued even if the person ceases to be juvenile. But under the Act an inquiry against a juvenile has to be initiated and continued under the Act and not under Criminal Procedure Code. So, inquiry in Sec. 3 should mean an inquiry under the Act and not under Criminal Procedure Code. There is no difficulty in placing this meaning because in definition clause it has been said that unless the context otherwise requires the definition given in that Section will have effect. Here as said above, the context requires otherwise. So the word 'inquiry' in Sec. 3 would mean an inquiry under the Act and not an inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code as defined by Sec. 2(g) of the Act.