//
archives

Juvenile Justice

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) – whether the appellant was ‘a juvenile’ within the meaning of the term ‘juvenile’ as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) when the offence was committed and whether the plea of juvenility can be raised by him at this stage. Apex court held that Proviso to Section 7-A states that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the J.J. Act, 2000 and the rules made thereunder even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of the J.J. Act, 2000. = Kulai Ibrahim @ Ibrahim … Appellant Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police B-1, Bazaar Police Station, Coimbatore. … Respondent = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41739

Juvenile Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) – whether the appellant was ‘a  juvenile’  within  the  meaning  of  the  term ‘juvenile’ as defined under the Juvenile Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) when the  offence  was  committed and whether the plea of juvenility can be raised by him … Continue reading

ARMY RULES 51, 72 – the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 = The High Court held that, under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’) the respondent could not be tried by GCM for the charges related to the period when he was juvenile and therefore, the GCM proceedings stood vitiated in entirety. However, the High Court has given liberty to the appellant to hold a fresh GCM, on the charges related to offences committed by the respondent after he attained the age of 18 years.= whether there has been any failure of justice in the present case and whether in light of the facts of the case, the entire GCM proceedings actually stood vitiated, as the respondent indeed could not be tried by the GCM for those charges that had been committed when the respondent was a juvenile. = Rule 51 of the Army Rules requires that the accused must raise the objection in respect of jurisdiction at an early stage of the commencement of proceedings. after attaining 18 years of age, the respondent committed four serious offences; he could have been punished with 10 years’ RI for the 2nd charge, 7 years’ RI for the 6th charge and 3 years’ RI on each count for the 4th and 5th charges. Further, there had been a joint trial, and in view of the provisions of Rule 65, a composite sentence of 7 years RI had been imposed. Undoubtedly, each charge had been in respect of a separate and distinct offence. Each charge could have been tried separately. Thus, the trial by way of a GCM remained partly valid. The offences committed by the respondent after attaining the age of 18 years, were not a part of the same transaction i.e. related to the offences committed by him as a juvenile. Nor were the same were so intricately intertwined that the same could not be separated from one another. Thus, invalidity of part of the order could not render the GCM proceedings invalid in entirety. Therefore, the valid part of the proceedings is required to be saved by applying the principle of severability of offences. The respondent could have asked for a separate trial of different charges as provided under Rule 79. – The High Court ought to have taken a cue from Rule 72 of the Army Rules for the purpose of deciding the case, as the same provides for mitigation of sentence in the event that a charge or finding thereon is found to be invalid, as the respondent could not have been tried by a GCM for the offences that had been committed by him as a juvenile, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 65 thereof. Thus, considering the nature of service of the respondent, the gravity of offences committed by him after attaining the age of 18 years and the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that grant of relief to the respondent, even on the principles of “justice, equity, and good conscience”; was not permissible. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds, and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court impugned herein, is set aside and the order of conviction recorded by the GCM is restored. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the GCM is reduced to five years. There shall be no order as to costs.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4465 of 2005 Union of India & Ors. … Appellants Versus Ex-GNR Ajeet Singh … Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 8.3.2004, passed … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,848,828 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com