MUNAKHUS SK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.

(2.) THE revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. is directed against an order dated 18. 9. 08 passed by the learned addl. Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Suri. in connection with Sessions Case No. 40 of 1986 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 559 of 1981. The learned Court below rejected the plea submitted by the petitioner herein that on the date of occurrence he was juvenile in conflict with law and as such, the separate procedure as to enquiry of the juvenile in conflict with law is required to be followed. Such procedure is required to be adopted only after decision is arrived by the learned Court below that on the date of occurrence the petitioner herein was juvenile within the meaning of the Act and such decision can be arrived only after conducting necessary enquiry. So far as the present case is concerned, the learned Court below took into consideration a certificate issued by the Panchayet but did not accept the same mainly relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2005)3 scc 551 : 2005)1 C Cr LR SC) 281.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that while passing the order dated 18. 9. 08, the learned Court below lost sight of the fact about the provisions under Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000. By way of amendment, the provision under section 7 A was inserted by Act 33 of 2006. The said provision is set out below: 7a. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.