Abdul Mannan
& Ors Vs. State of West
Bengal [1995] INSC
788 (5 December 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Faizan Uddin (J) Kirpal B.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 905 1996 SCC (1) 665 1995 SCALE (7)259
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
This
is an appeal against the order dated January 11, 1989 passed by the Calcutta High Court
in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1989. In Sessions Case No.63A of 1981 on the
file of the Additional Sessions Judge, 11 persons including the appellants are
facing trial.
The
appellants herein were charged for various offences including the offence of
murder punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Now it transpires that
on the date of the commission of the offence these appellants were under the
age of 17 and 18 years. Since they were children under the provisions of the
West Bengal Children Act, 1959 [for short, "the Act"], they were
required to be tried by the Juveniles Court
but no such court had been constituted.
Subsequently,
pending proceedings Juvenile Justices Act, 1986 has come into force and the Act
stood repealed. Even under the Act, trial of the juvenile offenders requires to
be conducted by the Juveniles
Court. Since no court
has been constituted even under the Central Act the necessary consequences
would be that the Sessions Judge had to conduct the trial.
Contention
was raised in the courts below that the Additional Sessions Judge is not a
Sessions Judge and that, therefore, he could not proceed with the trial. The
contention was rejected and thus this appeal by special leave against the
impugned order dated January
11, 1989.
Section
9 [1] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Act 21 of 1974] [for short,
"the Code"] enjoins the State Governments to establish a Court of
Session for every sessions division. It is made clear by sub-section [3] of
Section 9 which provides that Additional Sessions Judges may be appointed by
the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Singular
includes plural. Sessions Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge under
the Code.
Therefore,
he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to try the
offences enumerated under the Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore,
is competent to proceed with the trial of the juvenile offenders. Even though
at the relevant time the appellants were juveniles, by passage of time they no
longer remained to be juvenile offenders. They are now in mid thirties.
The
object of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform and rehabilitate the juvenile
offenders as useful citizens in the society. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the benefit of the Central Act was denied to them due to their own
act of keeping the trial pending by protracting litigation kept the case
pending trial and in the meanwhile the appellants had crossed the age of the
juvenile offenders and became adults. We do not think it is a proper case for
our interference as no useful purpose under Central Act would serve.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Back