Guddu alias Pradyamnu Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

V.P. Mathur, J.—This case was taken up after the revision of the list. No one appeared. I, therefore, went through the record of the case myself and considered the law on the point and the following judgment is delivered.

The brief facts are that Guddu alias Pradyamnu Kumar Singh along with his father Gopal Singh and one other person is an accused in Session Trial No. 179 of 1986 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is pending before the Special Additional Sessions Judge. Mirzapur. This case arises out of an incident which already took place on 24-2-86 in village Patka within the area of Police station Patka at about 2.30 p.m. Guddu, the present applicant was born on 3-4-70, and, therefore, on the date of incident he was less than 16 years of age and hence a juvenile. He was granted bail by the High Court. The incident which are rise to crime case No. 16 of 1986 was investigated by the Police and also the CID and a charge-sheet was submitted and ultimately the case was committed to the court of'' Section in July, 1986. Uptil now no charges have been framed and by an Order passed by this Court further proceedings have been stayed and this stay Order is continuing during the pendency of this petition.

The contention of the applicant is that since he is a juvenile, he cannot be tried or charged alongwith the persons who are not juveniles. Another co- accused Azadi is also juvenile and they both moved an application before the Sessions Judge on 26-4-88 which came up for hearing on 5-5-88. It was again adjourned for hearing to 9-5-88 and on that date it was rejected. The learned Judge by his Order dated 5-5-88 accepted the police report and held that Pradyamnu Kumar Singh alias Guddu and Azadi were respectively 15 years, 10 months and 19 days, and 14 years 9 months and 11 days and were, therefore juvenile. On 9-5-88, he however dismissed the petition holding that in view of Section 26 of the Juvenile Act, 1986, the Act is not applicable in respect of the pending proceedings. He also observed that since the Act came into force in December, 1986 and the proceedings in this case were already pending since July 1986, hence the present proceedings have to be held to be pending before the enforcement of the Act. He also took the view that at the time of the passing of the sentence, if any, in the case of conviction the matter of these juveniles will be forwarded to Juvenile court and Section. 24 of the Act has no application. With these observations he rejected the petition and directed that the charge will be framed against all the accused Jointly, and fixed a date for framing of the charges.

The legal position should be made absolutely clear. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 being Central Act No. 53 of 1986 received the assent of the President on December 1, 1986 and was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, dated 3-12-1986 on pages 1 to 23. Section 1 Sub-section (3) of the Act lays down:

It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and for different States.

It clearly means that by the simple receipt of the assent of the President and publication of the Act in the Gazette its application to the various States of the Union of India is not automatic The application of the Act or its different provisions have to take effect from such date as is notified in the official Gazette by the Central Government. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, wrong in holding that the Act has come into force in December, 1986. In Uttar Pradesh it did not come into force on the date it was published in the official Gazette. On the contrary, the Ministry of Welfare issued a notification No. GSR 710(E) dated August 13, 1987, which was published in the Gazette Extra Ordinary, Part II, Section 3(i), dated 13-8-87 at page 2 and it lays down:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986), the Central Government hereby appoints the 2nd day of October, 1987 as the date on which all the provisions of the Act shall come into force in all the States to which it extends.

Section 1 Sub-section (2) of the Act mentions that it extends whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Thus it will be clear that in view of the notification of the Ministry of Welfare, mentioned above, in Uttar Pradesh all the provisions of this Act came into force only on the 2nd day of October, 1987.

It is true that before 2-10-1987 the proceedings in Sessions Trial No, 179 of 1986 were already pending, but that will hardly make any difference. Sections 24 and 26 of the Act have to be considered. Section 24 clearly lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for, any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. Sub-section (2) of this Section lays down that if a juvenile is accused of an offence for which u/s 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force, such juvenile and any person who is not a juvenile would but for the prohibition contained in Sub-section (1), have been charged and tried together, the court taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trials of the juvenile and the other person.

A reading of these two Sub-sections of Section 24 will make it absolutely clear that the prohibition is not only against the joint trial but also against the joint charge and in all cases whether they were pending since before October 2, 1987 or have come up after that date Section 24 will apply if the charges have not been framed. But if the charges have been ''framed and the trial has already proceeded, then Section 26 will come into play which lays down:

Not with standing anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the juvenile court which shall pass Orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that the juvenile has committed the offence.

Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in interpreting Section 24 by saying that it did not apply to a pending case. It was applicable to the pending cases also, but with the condition that the charges had not yet been framed and the trial had not yet started because it is prohibition against the joint charging and joint trial and unless these two things have already proceeded, the prohibition will stand. Under these circumstances the petition is to be allowed and the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 9-5-88 has to be quashed with the direction that he will separate the cases of the juveniles from those of the non juveniles and frame separate charges in accordance with law and try them separately. Thereafter Section 26 will come into force and since the proceedings were already pending on the date when this Act had come into force, they would continue in the court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juveniles have committed an offence, then it will record a finding to that effect, but refrain from passing any sentence against such juveniles and forward them to the juvenile court.

I Order accordingly.