Dismissed

Linu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2009Crl.MC/2324/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused No.13 sought to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC claiming juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The court held that juvenility must be decided via inquiry under Section 7(A) before the Sessions Judge, dismissing the quashing petition but permitting an application to determine age and dispense with personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach Additional Sessions Judge to decide the claim of juvenility under Section 7(A) of the Act and to dispense with his presence.

Linu Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2324 of 2009

¶6

-------------------------------SC.359/2009 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM (CRIME NO.70/2005 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): 13TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------

¶8

LINU,S/O.RAJAN,LIJU BHAVAN, PALLIMURI,PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM,KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶11

------------------------------------------------------------STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶15

CRL.M.C.NO. 2324 OF 2009

¶16

Dated 17^th August 2009

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Petitioner is accused No.13 facing trial in S.C.359/2009 on the file of Additional Sessions court (Adhoc-II), Kollam. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against him after declaring that he is a juvenile in conflict with law as provided under Section 2(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶20

As seen from Annexure-II final report, the incident occurred on 25/3/2005. Case of the petitioner is that as seen from Annexure-III SSLC certificate, his date of birth is 31/5/1988 and petitioner has completed 17 years only on 30/5/2007 and he is a juvenile. Argument of the learned counsel

¶21

is that as under Section 7(A) of the Act, claim of juvenility could be raised before any court at any

¶22

CRMC 2324/09

¶23

¶24

time and petitioner is entitled to the declaration.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out

¶26

that under Section 7(A) question whether petitioner is juvenile or not is to be decided by the court on an enquiry after taking such evidence as may be necessary and in such circumstances, it is for the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge where case is pending to take a decision. I find force in the submission.

¶27

Section 7(A) provides the procedure to

¶28

be followed. when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court. Under Sub section (1) whenever a claim is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, court shall make an inquiry and take such evidence as may be necessary, so as to determine the age of such person and shall record a finding whether a person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as may be. Therefore petitioner is at liberty to approach Additional Sessions Judge where S.C.359/2009 is pending, to decide the claim as provided under Section 7(A) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be

¶29

¶30

CRMC 2324/09

¶31

permitted to file an application for exemption from personally appearing in court. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Sessions Judge to dispense with his presence for the purpose of filing and hearing the application to decide the juvenility.

¶32

Petition is disposed.

¶33

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶34

uj.

Linu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Linu v. State of Kerala

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

Joy Vs Forest Range Officer Kollengode Forest

State of Kerala Vs Henry Vijayakumar

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Sasikala & Another Vs State of Kerala & Another

Kallyani Vs State of Kerala

Sainudheen Vs State of Kerala & Another