Partly allowed

Montu Suri @ Montu Churi v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC3 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.P./324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Gauhati High Court quashed a charge framed under Section 8 of the POCSO Act for an offence committed in 2012, before the Act's commencement in November 2012, due to its non-retrospective nature. The charge under Section 354 A(1) IPC was left unaltered and the case remanded for trial on that charge.

What did the court decide?

The charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act was set aside and the proceedings continued for the charge under Section 354 A(1) IPC.

Montu Suri @ Montu Churi Vs the State of Assam… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010185562018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 324/2018

¶6

1:MONTU SURI @ MONTU CHURI S/O LT. BUDHU SURI R/O VILL- DEEPLING TE NEW LINE P.O. AND P.S. KAKATIBARI, IN THE DIST. OF CHARAIDEO, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

2:SRI PRABIN TANTI R/O VILL- DEEPLING TEA ESTATE P.O. AND P.S. KAKATIBARI IN THE DIST. OF CHARAIDEO ASSA

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 03-09-2018

¶15

Heard Mr. M Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 01.08.2018, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonari in Sessions Case No.200(S-C)/2017, whereby learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 8

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

of the POCSO Act and Section 354 A(1) IPC.

¶19

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence took place on 16.07.2012 and as such, no charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act could have been framed, inasmuch as, the POCSO Act came into force with effect from 14.11.2012 and therefore, the charge framed against the accused/petitioner under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is liable to be quashed.

¶20

Evidently, the POCSO Act 2012, came into force with effect from 14.11.2012 and as such, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel that no charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act could be framed reason being that there could not be retrospective effect of a penal provision.

¶21

This being the position, the charge framed under Section 8 of the POCSO Act deserves to be set-aside. So far charge under Section 354 A(1) IPC is concerned, no interference is required, as the charge under Section 354 A(1) IPC was framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of the materials and evidences on record. Thus, the impugned order qua the framing of charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, is set-aside and the proceeding shall continue for other charges framed against the petitioner.

¶22

The revision petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶23

J U D G E

¶24

Smita

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Montu Suri @ Montu Churi v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Montu Suri @ Montu Churi v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

Saidul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Amiya Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Soyed Ahmed Laskar @ Saidul Islam Laskar @ Sadik Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kumar Rai Vs State of Assam

Basant Prasad and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Thaneswar Deka and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.