2000 JTR(SC) 375
2000 6 SCC 759 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1270 ; 2000 KHC 1304
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Babu : S.S.M.Quadri
Raj Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Case No. : 787 of 1998
Date of Decision : 2/16/00
A person under 16 years of age at the time of the offence is a juvenile and must be tried by the Juvenile Court; conviction by a Court of Session is vitiated and legally unsustainable.
Act
Referred
:JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
: S.2(e), S.22
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Sections 2(h), 2(c) and 22 - Possession of charas - Trial of juvenile - Person of less than 16 years of age defined as juvenile - Delinquent juvenile cannot be tried by the Court of Session and is not liable to imprisonment - Trial must be conducted by the Juvenile Court - If the accused was a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence, a trial conducted by the Court of Session leading to conviction is vitiated. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possession of charas. It was subsequently contended that on the date of the alleged offence, the appellant was a juvenile, being less than 16 years of age, as evidenced by a certificate issued by the school education board.
Findings of Court:
The date of birth of the appellant was established as 9-12-1974. Consequently, on the date of the alleged offence, the appellant was a juvenile. The trial should have been held as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act, and the procedure followed leading to conviction is vitiated.
Issues: Whether the conviction by the Court of Session is sustainable when the accused was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who is less than 16 years of age at the time of the offence is a juvenile and must be tried by the Juvenile Court; any trial conducted by the Court of Session in such a case is vitiated and the resulting conviction is bad in law.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possession of charas. It was subsequently contended that on the date of the alleged offence, the appellant was a juvenile, being less than 16 years of age, as evidenced by a certificate issued by the school education board.
Findings of Court:
The date of birth of the appellant was established as 9-12-1974. Consequently, on the date of the alleged offence, the appellant was a juvenile. The trial should have been held as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act, and the procedure followed leading to conviction is vitiated.
Issues: Whether the conviction by the Court of Session is sustainable when the accused was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who is less than 16 years of age at the time of the offence is a juvenile and must be tried by the Juvenile Court; any trial conducted by the Court of Session in such a case is vitiated and the resulting conviction is bad in law.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Juvenile - The court relied on this decision to support the view that a juvenile cannot be tried by the Court of Session and must be tried by the Juvenile Court.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.
(1) THE appellant before us has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession ofcharas. The prosecution case is that on 22-5-1990, on suspicion the appellant and one Tulsa Bai were apprehended when opium from Tulsa Bai and charas from the appellant were recovered. The trial court acquitted both the accused in separate trials. However, on appeal by the State the judgment of the Sessions Judge was reversed in the case of the appellant by setting aside the acquittal and he had been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Hence this appeal.
(2) IN this appeal it is urged that the appellant was born on 9-12-1974 and as the date of alleged committal of offence was 22-5-1990, and on that day, he was a juvenile being less than 16 years of age, he could not have been tried by the Sessions Court but by the Juvenile Court and hence his conviction is bad. Unfortunately this contention has not been raised at any stage earlier. Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") defines a juvenile to be a person of less than 16 years of age. Section 2(c) of the Act defines that a juvenile who has been found to have committed an offence is a delinquent juvenile. Section 22 of the Act provides that in no case a delinquent juvenile is liable to imprisonment but has to be tried by the Juvenile Court and cannot be tried by the Court of Session. We are fortified in this view by a decision of this Court in Raghbir v. State of Haryana.
(3) IT is on record that the appellants date of birth is 9-12-1974 as per the certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana. This certificate stands reaffirmed by another certificate produced today before the Court verifying the said fact. In the circumstances, there cannot be any serious dispute about the date of birth of the appellant i.e. 9-12-1974. If that is so, the trial should have been held only as provided under Section 22 of the Act so a different procedure followed leading to conviction of the appellant is vitiated.
(4) WE allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. We direct that the entire trial shall stand quashed and the appellant should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
(5) IT will be open to the appellant to move an appropriate application for grant of bail in the trial court.