ANTARYAMI PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law has been urged in this case by Mr. Dhal appearing for the petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the Special Judge, Keonjhar, who has refused the petitioner's prayer for bail, as he is involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the "N.D.P.S. Act"). The said question is whether in view of S. 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a "juvenile" as defined in S. 2(h) of the Act is entitled to be released on bail even if he is accused of committing an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act notwithstanding the provisions of S. 37 of the said Act.

(2.) To appreciate this contention in its proper perspective, it would be appropriate to notice the two provisions which are extracted herein below in extenso :- Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 reads as follows :-

(3.) Mr. Dhal appearing for the petitioner contends that the expression "any other law for the time being in force" in Section 18(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act would include the provisions of S. 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act and, therefore, the non obstante clause in S. 18(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act would exclude the application of S. 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, where a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested and is apparently a juvenile and the said person should be released on bail in accordance with the legislative mandate contained in S. 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Mr. Dhal further contends that the Juvenile Justice Act as well as the N.D.P.S. Act both being Central Acts and the Juvenile Justice Act being a latter Act by rules of interpretation, the latter Act should prevail and, therefore, the embargo contained in S. 37 of the N.D.P.S Act with regard to the release on bail of an accused involved in commission of an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act will not be attracted in case of a juvenile. Mr. Rao, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that the N.D.P.S. Act being a special statute and having been enacted to face the problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs and stringent provisions having been made therein, the same should override the general provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice Act. He further contends that at any rate, S. 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act having come into force with effect from 29-5-1989, later than the Juvenile Justice Act, the said provision contained in S. 37 should override the provision of S. 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act and, therefore, the accused even though a juvenile, if is found to be involved in commission of a non-bailable offence under the N.D.P.S. Act, he cannot be released on bail until and unless the provisions of S. 37 of the said Act are complied with. The rival submissions require a careful examination of the two provisions of the two Act, namely S. 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act and S. 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the purpose for which these enactments were engrafted and the rules of interpretation.