Dismissed

Bhanwarlal S/O Late Shri Chunnilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2018CRLR/1232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of a complainant's appeal. The petitioner argued for preliminary assessment as the juvenile was above 16 and committed murder. The court held that Section 25 mandates continuation of pending proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board without retrospective application of Section 15.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; stay application disposed of.

Bhanwarlal S/O Late Shri Chunnilal Vs State… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1232/2018

¶3

Bhanwarlal S/o Late Shri Chunnilal, R/o Village Molyasi, Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶7

Nirmal Nehra S/o Shri Birbal Singh, R/o Village Molyasi, Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Complainant : Mr.Ashok Sharma Petitioner(s) For State Mr.Sudesh Saini,PP For Accused Non: Mr.Anoop Dhand Petitioner

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

16/11/2018

REPORTABLE

BY THE COURT :

Complainant-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sikar and against the order dated 05.05.2018 passed by Children Court/Special Judge, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (Additional Sessions Judge No.2), Sikar whereby the appeal preferred by the complainant-petitioner was rejected.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for complainant-petitioner that the child in conflict with law was aged 17 years 10 months on the date of commission of offence i.e. 12.9.2015. It is contended that in

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLR-1232/2018]

¶19

view of Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 preliminary assessment was required to be conducted as the child in conflict with law was above the age of 16 years and a heinous offence of murder was committed by him. It is contended that the Courts below have wrongly interpreted Section 25 of the Act in holding that the trial would continue with the Juvenile Justice Board and no assessment is required to be done under Section 15 of the Act.

¶20

Counsel for the child in conflict with law has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 came into force on 15.1.2016 and since the offence was committed prior to the enforcement of this Act, the proceedings were required to be continued before the Board where the matter was pending. It is contended that the juvenile was produced before the Board on 2.9.2015 and was in juvenile home as per direction of the Board. It is also contended that the Act is not having retrospective effect and therefore, Section 15 of the Act would not come into play.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:

¶23

“Special provision in respect of pending cases:

¶24

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child alleged or found to be in conflict with law pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of this Act, shall be continued in that Board or court as if this Act had not been enacted.”

¶25

Legislature in its wisdom has used the word “child” in the said Section. Child in conflict with law was produced before the Board on 2.9.2015 and the charge-sheet was filed on 2.12.2016.

¶26

(3 of 3) [CRLR-1232/2018]

¶27

The matter was pending before the Board on the date of commencement of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and juvenile was in juvenile home, as per order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, hence, the proceedings would continue before the Board as per Section 25 of the Act. The Act has prospective effect and preliminary assessment as mandated by Section 15 of the Act is not required to be conducted in respect of a child who is involved in an offence committed prior to commencement of the Act.

¶28

Accordingly, I do not find any force in the revision petition.

¶29

The revision petition is dismissed. Stay application also

¶30

stands disposed of.

¶31

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶32

Teekam/5

Bhanwarlal S/O Late Shri Chunnilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwarlal S/O Late Shri Chunnilal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Kaptan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Sweta Tripathi Vs Punit Dutta

Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajesh Kanwadia Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vakila S/O Mungaram B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Prem Singh @ Titar Son of Nahar Singh, by Caste Meena Vs State of Rajasthan, through P.P.