The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. = The certificate reveals the date of birth of the accused as 10.05.1991. The school leaving certificate was proved by examining the head mistress of the school. She has recognized the signatures of the principal who issued the school leaving certificate. The evidence adduced by the head mistress was not challenged. Consequently, there is no reason to discard that document. Further, we notice that there was some confusion as to whether the appellant, whose name is Ranjeet Goswami is the same person Rajiv Ranjan Goswami. The investigating officer’s report indicates that they are different persons. Consequently we have to take it that the school leaving certificate produced was in respect of the appellant which has been proved.- We, therefore, find no reason to reject the school leaving certificate. If that be so, as per the ratio laid down in Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra) there is no question of subjecting the accused to a medical examination by a medical board. Going by the school leaving certificate since the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, he can be tried only by the JJ Board. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Sessions Judge, Dumka is restored. The appeal is allowed, as stated above.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40789 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1465 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10661 of 2010) Ranjeet Goswami ….. Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents J U D G M E N T K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We notice … Continue reading

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

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,200 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