BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, which is directed against the order dated 23.8.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 302 IPC and a case was registered against him and one Gopal Singh. The alleged occurrence took place on 4.8.1999 and the FIR was registered on 5.8.1999. The petitioner moved an application under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act pleading that he was juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence and, therefore, was entitled to the protection of the Act.

(2.) THE Magistrate before whom the proceedings under the Act were initiated held an inquiry under the provisions of the Act. He went into the matter and concluded that on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.8.1999 the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force and as per the definition given in this Act under Clause (h) of Section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who had not attained the age of 18 years. It rejected the contention of the petitioner that since the new Act of 2000 which came into existence in 2006 has given a retrospective effect to the act according to Section 20 and explanation appended thereto and therefore the benefit was available to the petitioner. Rather, he concluded that since in April 2001 the petitioner was not a juvenile and he was more than 18 years of age, the prayer of the petitioner was declined. In appeal, the order of the learned Magistrate was affirmed on the parity of the same reasoning.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on a judgment of the apex court rendered in Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008(4) RCR(Criminal) 543 : 2008(5) RAJ 494 to contend that this matter has been categorically considered and the benefit of the juvenile could not be afforded to the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.