CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Ajai Kumar @ Anja vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 5 June 1995 · Citation: (1995) 06 AHC CK 0007

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.A.Rahim, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 — Section 4, 7
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 701 of 1995
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 389 words

C. A. Rahim, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. O. A. Grievance of the applicant is that the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition of the applicant for a separate trial before a Juvenile Court as he was a minor on the date of the occurrence. The petition was rejected on the ground that since the accused was aged 18 years and 9 months on the date of the order i.e. on 2251995 it is not necessary that a separate trial be conducted. According to the learned Judge the person should be juvenile on the date when he is produced before a Juvenile Court. Since that stage is over the learned Judge declined to refer the applicant to a Juvenile Court.

2.

In the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 529 (FB) it has been held that age of the accused be determined on the date of commission of the offence. In the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 237 it has been held that the plea of minority can be raised at any time even at the time of the trial. In the decision reported in 1976 (1) Crimes 185 it has bsen held that the trial of a juvenile along with the adult accused was violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 28 of the West Bengal Children Act, 1959. The said Act has been replaced by the Juvenile Justice Act.

3.

The spirit of enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act is that a juvenile should be tried separately and for the privileges were extended for his reform. It has also been indicated that no juvenile can be convicted for any offence under the IPC. So it is necessary that a juvenile should be separately tried and Juvenile Court has been fixed for that purpose. As the learned trial Judge has held that age of the applicant was 15 years and 9 months on the date of the occurrence so he could have sent the case of the applicant to the Juvenile Court for trial of the alleged offence. The application is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 2251995 is hereby set aside. The learned Judge is to decide the matter in the light of the observations made above and proceed according to the law. The application is disposed of accordingly.

Application allowed.