juvenile justice act

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 = since on the date of his conviction the Petitioner was over 21 years old, and therefore, was not a juvenile under the erstwhile or current statutory dispensation as per the wisdom of the Legislature, there was no impediment or legal impropriety in his having to undergo his sentence in an ordinary jail; on the contrary being an adult it would not have been advisable for him to be detained in a Borstal School as he may detrimentally influence younger persons. The position would have been totally different had he, on the date of his conviction, been between ages of 16 and 21 years as he would then have required to be placed in a Borstal School. Even if this infraction had occurred, the Petitioner would not be entitled to bail today solely on that score. In any event, the entire argument is totally academic since on the present date the Petitioner is over 30 years of age and on the date of his conviction for the commission of the offence, the Petitioner was over 21 years of age. The Borstal Schools Act merely concerns detention of a convict, whereas the Juvenile Justice Act deals with detention as also the punishment or sentence that can be imposed. 6. Accordingly the Application for bail, on the grounds pressed before us, is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

punishable   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40792      REPORTABLE     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRL.M.P. NO.853 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.811 OF 2011       Nagoor Pichai @ Badusha …..Petitioner   Versus   State Tr. Sub-Inspector of Police …..Respondent                   J … Continue reading

in the absence of clear evidence of age of accused whether he is juvenile or not , the doctors evidence can be considered for determining the age of the accused. Admittedly as second thought, the petitioner innovated and created another son who said to be died as an explanation for the another date of birth certificate – a second thought clearly establishes that the petitioner deliberately placed false records for proving the accused as minor.The apex court set aside the order of the High court and additional sessions judge and upheld that the accused is not juvenile and is not entitled for the benefits of juvenile justice act

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2411/2011) OM PRAKASH ..Appellant Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. ..Respondents J U D G E M E N T GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. The Judgment and order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,299 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com