Partly allowed

Kiran Lakshman Dabade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jun 2013WP/754/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner contested an order rejecting his claim of juvenility. The court held that the Magistrate failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act and set aside the order, directing the trial court to examine the claim within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to examine juvenility claim under Section 7A within one month; trial stayed pending decision.

Kiran Lakshman Dabade Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

913-WP-754-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2012

¶5

KIRAN LAKSHMAN DABADE )...PETITIONER

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Karan Bhosale i/b. Ms.Devika Nigude Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.A.A.Mane APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 21^st JUNE, 2013.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Rule.

¶12

By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶13

By consent, heard finally.

¶14

2 The petitioner is one of the accused in C.R.No.74 of 2011 registered at Wai Police Station. The case has been investigated into and charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and other accused in respect of offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 142, 147, 148, 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149 thereof. When the matter was at investigation stage, the petitioner

¶15

avk 1/4

¶16

913-WP-754-2012

¶17

claimed that he had not completed 18 years of age on the date of the incident, and that, as such, he was a juvenile. The learned Magistrate, however, did not accept this contention. Though the petitioner had relied upon certain documents in support of his claim of juvenility, the Magistrate held that the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim of juvenility was not supported by any “material proof to strengthen the correctness of the birth date.” The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has approached this court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶18

3 I have heard Mr.Karan Bhosale, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs.A.A.Mane, the learned APP for the State.

¶19

4 Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, (Juvenile Justice Act) 2000, lays down the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court. It requires the court to make an inquiry, take such evidence so as to determine the age of the person who makes such a claim and then to record a finding whether such person is a juvenile or a child, or not. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the said Act, Rules have been framed and these Rules inter alia lay down the procedure to be followed for determination of age.

¶20

5 The impugned order has been passed without making a proper inquiry in accordance with the relevant provisions. The determination of age of a person, who claims himself to be a juvenile, is a solemn function, as, if the claim is accepted, a person would be

¶21

avk 2/4

¶22

913-WP-754-2012

¶23

treated in a totally different manner in the matter of prosecution and punishment. Such finding, therefore, could not have been arrived at without holding a proper inquiry in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The conclusion of the Magistrate, as reflected in the impugned order dated 3.12.2011, cannot be said to be proper or legal. The impugned order, therefore, needs to be interfered with.

¶24

6 However, though I am inclined to set aside the impugned order, I am not inclined to undertake the exercise on giving finding on that aspect, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction. It would be appropriate if the trial court is directed to decide the claim of juvenility made by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶25

7 The petition is partly allowed.

¶26

8 The impugned order is set aside.

¶27

9 The trial court shall examine the claim of juvenility raised by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶28

10 Such a claim shall be decided by the trial court, as early as possible, and preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order by it.

avk 3/4

913-WP-754-2012

Needless to say, that the trial court shall not proceed with the trial, till the claim of juvenility is decided.

¶33

12 The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

13 Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶35

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶36

avk 4/4

Kiran Lakshman Dabade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Lakshman Dabade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Abdul Ajij Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Geeta Khare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran @ D. K. Baban Dombale Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Nitin Nagarji Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Ravan Pujari Vs Vasuda Nandan Sarmalkar and Anr.

Rachit Vyas Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.