SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in S. T. No. 112/97, dated May 30, 2002, whereby Santosh (accused) has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201, IPC, though acquitted for offence under Section 377, IPC.

(2.) IT is not necessary to make mention of the facts of the case, since the question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal is competent at this stage. By the impugned judgment, the accused has been convicted for the aforesaid offences. The conviction is not followed by imposition of sentence or any other consequential order, the Trial Court having come to the conclusion that the accused is a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity 'act of 2000'), therefore, instead of passing any sentence, forwarded him to the Board constituted under Section 4 of Chapter II of the Act of 2000. Against this judgment, the accused filed this appeal.

(3.) DURING pendency of this appeal, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 655/2002 challenging the finding of the Trial Court that the accused is a juvenile. By order dated 12-8-2002, the revision has been allowed, the Trial Court has been directed to decide the question whether the accused is a juvenile, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and recording evidence. This order seems to have become final, since it has not been challenged before the Apex Court. Therefore, solitary question which falls for consideration is whether this appeal is competent. Chapter XVIII Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, comprising Sections 225 to 237, deals with trial before a Court of Session, while Chapter XIX comprising Sections 238 to 250, deals with trial of warrant-cases by Magistrates. This case is of trial before the Court of Session in the context of the offence with which the accused has been charged. Section 235 reads as under :--