DIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 17th of September, 1993 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the application moved on behalf of the present petitioner that he is a child and his age is 15-1/3 years and that he be tried as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act 1986 separately by a Special Court. It was further prayed that his case may be separated from his co-accused and sent for trial before the Special Court in view of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed there under.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, had no jurisdiction to decide the question of age of the petitioner in order to decide the main question whether he was a juvenile or not at the time of the commission of the offence. Relevant provisions of Sections 2(d) and 7 of the Act are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: 2(d) competent authority means, in relation to neglected juvenile, a Board and, in relation to delinquent juveniles, a Juvenile Coon and where no such Board or Juvenile Coon has been constituted, includes any Court empowered under sub-section (2) of Section 7 to exercise the powers conferred In a Board or Juvenile Court.T Powers of Board and Juvenile Court: (1) where a Board or a Juvenile Court has been constituted for any area, such Board or Court, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force but have as otherwise expressly provided in this Act have power to deal exclusively with all proceedings under This Act relating to neglected juvenile or delinquent juveniles, as the case may be: Provided that a Board or a Juvenile Court may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do having regard to the circumstances of the case, transfer any proceedings to any Juvenile Court or Board, as the case may be. Provided further that where there is any difference of opinion between a Board and a Juvenile Court regarding the transfer of any proceedings under the first proviso, it shall be referred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Judicial Magistrate for decision, and in a case where the District Magistrate in functioning as a Board of a Juvenile Court, such difference of opinion shall be referred to the Court of Sessions, and the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Court of Sessions on such reference shall be final.

(3.) Perusal of sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 7 of the Act shows that powers conferred on the Board or the Juvenile Court by or under the Act may also be exercised by the Sessions Court or the High Court when the proceeding comes before them in appeal or revision or otherwise. The word or otherwise appearing at the end of Section 7 (3) clearly indicates that it would be open to the Court of Sessions to exercise the powers conferred on the Board or Juvenile Court by or under this Act while conducting trial in a murder case as is the situation in the present case. In my opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge was legally competent to decide the question of the age of the petitioner and further to decide as to whether the petitioner had attained the age of 16 years and would come within the definition of juvenile under Section 2(h) of the Act.