juvenile justice act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 March 2010
This query is : Resolved
whether a juvenile who crossed the age of 18 years during proceedings before the board can be inflicted with any of the punishment under sec. 15 of the juvenile justice act
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 March 2010
No. The age at the time of the commission of the offense is to be taken into consideration even though such juvenile has attained the majority during the pendancy of the proceedings.
Guest
(Expert) 05 March 2010
I do agree with Mr Raj..... I would like to add......
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. was reiteratedby Hon’ble Apex Court. It inter alia held:-(a) The reckoning date for the determination of theage of Juvenile is the date of offence and not thedate when he is produced before the Authority orin the Court.(b) The 2000 Act would be applicable in a pendingproceeding in any Court/Authority initiated under1986 Act and is pending when the 2000 Act cameinto force and person had not completed 18 yearsof age as on 01.04.2001.45. In this case the Hon’ble Justice Manju Goel of ourown High Court upheld the age of accused Lal Mohd. as 21years as on 19.01.2004. If computation is made backward,on 19.01.2001 accused was 18 years in age this reflects thaton 01.04.2001 age of accused was more than 18 years sothe Authority relied on by the defence as referred above arenot applicable to accused Lal Mohd. He was major on dateof offence legally. …â€5.From the above, it is apparent that as on the date of theoffence, that is, on 13.11.2000, the appellant was approximately 17years and 10 months old. This is so because, according to the MedicalBoard, his age has been determined to be 21 years as on 19.01.2004. This clearly indicates that the appellant Lal Mohammad was below theage of 18 years on the date of the offence. However, he crossed the ageof 18 years on 19.01.2004 and was over 18 years of age on 01.04.2001when the Juvenile Justice Act came into force. It was in view of thisthat the Trial Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court inPratap Singh’s case (supra), rejected the plea of the appellant LalMohammad with regard to his being a juvenile. Two points were decided by the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh’s case (supra). Theyare:-“(a) The reckoning date for the determination of the age ofthe juvenile is the date of an offence and not the datewhen he is produced before the authority or in theCourt.(b) The 2000 Act would be applicable in a pendingproceeding in any court/authority initiated under the1986 Act and is pending when the 2000 Act came intoforce and the person had not completed 18 years ofage as on 1.4.2001.â€(underlining added)6.However, subsequent to the said Constitution Benchdecision, notable amendments were introduced in the Juvenile JusticeAct by the Amendment Act of 2006. Unfortunately, these amendmentswere not noticed by the Trial Court although the decision of the TrialCourt was rendered on 15.05.2008, much after the amendments hadbeen introduced. The definition of ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ wasamended and the new Section 2 (l) reads as under:-‘2(l) “juvenile in conflict with law†means a juvenile whois alleged to have committed an offence and has notcompleted eighteenth year of age as on the date ofcommission of such offence;Section 7A was inserted, which reads as under:-“7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenilityis raised before any court.— (1) Whenever a claim ofjuvenility is raised before any court or a court is of theopinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date ofcommission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry,
take such evidence as may be necessary (but not anaffidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, andshall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or achild or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before anycourt and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after finaldisposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined interms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rulesmade thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so onor before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date ofcommission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shallforward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriateorder, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall bedeemed to have no effect.â€(underlining added)Section 15 (1) (g) was also amended and the amended provision readsas under:-“Section 15. Order that may be passed regarding juvenile.—(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenilehas committed an offence, then notwithstanding anythingto the contrary contained in any other law for the timebeing in force, the Board may, if it thinks so fit,- make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to aspecial home for a period of three years: Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that havingregard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances ofthe case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded,reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit.Similarly, an amendment was made in Section 16 also. The said provision
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 March 2010
my query is little bit different. for example a juvenile of 17 years committed an offence. thereafter he tried by the board under juvenile act.when the decision of board came accused becomes more than 18 years. which means now he is no more juvenile as per the definition of juvenile under the act. now the question arises whether that person can be inflicted with any of the punishments under sec. 15 of the juvenile justice act.
