Quashed

Mallika v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Madras HC7 Aug 2014HCP/871/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a finding that the detenu, a convict in a robbery case, was a juvenile (15-6 months) at the time of the offence. Following the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Court quashed the criminal sentence and directed the production of the detenu before the Juvenile Justice Board.

What did the court decide?

Sentence in S.C.No.211 of 2005 and confirmed judgment quashed; detenu to be produced before JJ Board, Villupuram.

Mallika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶5

AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

HCP No.871 of 2012

Mallika

...Petitioner

Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.

¶10

The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Cuddalore District. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce petitioner's son, the detenu Raja [Convict], Son of Venkatesan, detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore District, in S.C. 211/2005 dated 24.07.2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Tindivanam and hold him as Juvenile, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.,]

¶13

Smt.Mallika, the petitioner herein, is the mother of the detenu Raja, who was convicted for offences under Sections 452, 395, 396, 397 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to varying terms ranging from one year of Rigorous Imprisonment to imprisonment for life besides fine in S.C.No.211 of 2005 on 24.07.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam and as confirmed by this Court by judgement dated 02.07.2008 in Crl.A.No.73 of 2007.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

2.It is the case of the petitioner that her son was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence, namely 08.07.2004 and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as JJ Act]. In support of her plea, she produced the Form of Transfer Certificate of her son issued by B.Z. High Court, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. This Court having been prima facie satisfied with the claim and following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuzar Hussain @ Gulam vs. State of West Bengal [2012(4) MLJ (crl)334 SC] wherein it was held by the Apex Court that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any time even after the conviction and sentence of the accused has been confirmed by the highest Court, by order dated 12.09.2013, directed the trial court to conduct an inquiry on 12.09.2013 and submit a report with regard to the age of the detenu. Accordingly, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge sent a report in his proceedings under letter in D.No.648/2013 dated 25.10.2013. In his report, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge has determined the age of the detenu as “15 years completed” as on the date of commission of offence, i.e., 08.07.2004.

¶16

We carefully perused the above said report and we were not satisfied with the methodology and the reasoning adopted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge in determining the age of the detenu. Therefore, by order dated 06.02.104, we directed the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, to again conduct an inquiry and submit a report to this court with regard to the age of the detenue as on the date of commission of offence. Accordingly, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, conducted an inquiry and submitted his report under letter in D.No.5066/2014 dated 28.04.2014. On a perusal of the report, we found that the learned Sessions Judge has examined Smt.Mallika [P.W.1], the mother of the detenu and Shri.Viswanathan, the son-in-law of P.W.1 and through them he has marked six documents relating to the birth of not only the detenu, but also his siblings which were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.6. The learned Sessions Judge has also examined one Shri.Durgabathy [C.W.1] who is serving as Assistant at Chittoor B.Z. High School, where the detenue had studied upto 9^th standard and thereafter had discontinued his studies. Through C.W.1-Durgabathy, the Admission Register of the School was produced and documents viz., Transfer Certificate (Ex.C.1), Admission Registration Certificate (Ex.C.2), Entry Regarding the Admission of the detenu to VI Standard (Ex.C.3), Entry Regarding the age of the detenue (Ex.C.4), Application for admission of the detenu (Ex.C.5) and Transfer Certificate (Ex.C.6) were marked. We also carefully perused the evidence of P.W.1 and C.W.1 and also Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Exs.C.1 to C.6. Based on the above documents, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has concluded that the date of birth of the detenu is 24.07.04.1988 and as on the date of commission of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offence i.e, 08.07.2014, he was 15 years, 11 months and 16 days old

¶17

and as such he was a juvenile as per the JJ Act, 2000. Therefore, we accept the finding of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram that the date of birth of the detenu – Raja is 24.07.1988 and as on 08.07.2004 [date of commission of offence], his age was 15 years and 6 months and 11 days.

¶18

The next question that we require to answer is that should we direct his release just like that from the prison? Under Section 3 of the JJ Act, 2000, the inquiry initiated against the juvenile who is in conflict with law can proceed even after he ceases to be a juvenile and in the event of the JJ Board holding that he has committed an offence, orders can be passed only under Section 15 of the Act. In a case of this nature where the detenu is now 26 years old, no order under Section 15(g) directing the juvenile to be sent to Special Home for a period of three months can be passed. However, other orders under Section 15 like counselling the detenu, directing him to perform community service etc can be passed by the JJ Board. As far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, after the judgement of a learned single Judge of this Court in Idukkan vs. the Inspector of Police [2014 (4) CTC 718] the State of Tamil Nadu acted with alacrity and constituted JJ Boards in all the Districts in the State. The JJ Board members were also given special training by the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy as required by the Rules. In Ashwant Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2013 SC 553] case cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after holding that the accused therein was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence, quashed the sentence and sent the case records to the concerned JJ Board for passing suitable orders. We follow the same and we hereby quash the sentence imposed on Raja in S.C.No.211 of 2005 dated 24.07.2006 and as confirmed by this Court by judgement dated 02.07.2008 in Crl.A.No73 of 2007. We direct that the detenu Raja be produced before the JJ Board, Villupuram, for passing appropriate orders, immediately.

¶19

Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.

¶20

Sd/Asst. Registrar (CS-II) //True Copy//

¶21

Sub Asst. Registrar.

¶22

kmk

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

The Secretary, Home Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Cuddalore District.
3. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tindivanam.
4. - Do - The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tindivanam.
5. Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Villupuram.
6. Juvenile Justice Board,
Villupuram.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1CC to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate, SR 35524
HCP No.871 of 2012
RSY [CO]
PSI 21/08/2014

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mallika v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallika v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Victoria Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.

Mani Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Pushpa Vs State Rep by

N.v.Venkatraman Vs Ananda Valli

T.Arindaran @ Baskaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Inbarajan Vs the Inspector of Police