2005 (2) TMI 816 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Clarifies Juvenile Offender Age Determination

PRATAP SINGH Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR

The Supreme Court held that the date of the offence is the correct reckoning date for determining the age of a juvenile offender, emphasizing the ... Whether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for determining the age of the alleged offender as Juvenile offender or the date when he is produced in the Court/competent authority? Whether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in the case a proceeding initiated under Juvenile Justice 1986 Act and pending when the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 was enforced with effect from 1.4.2001? Issues Involved:1. Determination of the relevant date for assessing the age of a juvenile offender.2. Applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 to cases initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Determination of the Relevant Date for Assessing the Age of a Juvenile OffenderThe core question was whether the date of occurrence or the date of production before the court should be considered for determining the age of the alleged offender as a juvenile. The appellant argued that the date of the offence should be the reckoning date, citing the case of *Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan* (1982) 2 SCC 202, which was decided by a three-Judge Bench. This decision emphasized that the objective of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was to reform and rehabilitate juveniles, and taking the date of the offence as the reckoning date would align with this purpose. The appellant further argued that the decision in *Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar* (2000) 5 SCC 488, decided by a two-Judge Bench, did not consider the earlier ruling in *Umesh Chandra*.The Supreme Court noted the objectives of the 1986 Act, which aimed to provide care, protection, treatment, development, and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles. The court highlighted that the beneficial legislation should be interpreted to advance its cause. The definition of 'delinquent juvenile' under the 1986 Act referred to a juvenile found to have committed an offence, making the date of the offence critical.The court examined Section 32 of the 1986 Act, which deals with the presumption and determination of age, and noted that the term 'is' in the section referred to the juvenile at the time of the offence. The court also considered Sections 18, 20, 26, and 32 of the 1986 Act, which supported the view that the relevant date for determining the age of a juvenile is the date of the offence. The court reaffirmed the decision in *Umesh Chandra* and held that the date of the offence is the correct reckoning date for determining the age of a juvenile offender.Issue 2: Applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 to Cases Initiated Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986The second question was whether the 2000 Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act and pending when the 2000 Act came into force on 1.4.2001. The appellant argued that the 2000 Act should apply to all pending cases, extending the benefit of being a juvenile to those under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. The respondent contended that the 2000 Act, being non-retrospective, would not apply to cases initiated under the 1986 Act.The court examined Section 69 of the 2000 Act, which repealed the 1986 Act but saved actions taken under the 1986 Act as if they were taken under the 2000 Act. Section 20 of the 2000 Act, dealing with pending cases, indicated that all proceedings pending in any court on the date the 2000 Act came into force would continue as if the 2000 Act had not been passed. However, if the court found that the juvenile had committed an offence, it would forward the juvenile to the Board for orders under the 2000 Act.The court noted the significant change in the definition of 'juvenile' between the 1986 and 2000 Acts. Under the 2000 Act, a juvenile was defined as a person who had not completed 18 years of age, without distinguishing between males and females. The court concluded that the provisions of the 2000 Act would apply to pending cases if the person had not completed 18 years of age as of 1.4.2001. This interpretation aligned with the benevolent intent of the legislation to provide care, protection, and rehabilitation to juveniles.Conclusion:(a) The reckoning date for determining the age of a juvenile offender is the date of the offence, not the date of production before the court.(b) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000, applies to pending proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act, provided the person had not completed 18 years of age as of 1.4.2001.The appeal was disposed of accordingly.