Supreme Court of India
ABDUL MANNAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 837
- Decided
- 5 December 1995
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
An Additional Sessions Judge is included within the definition of a Sessions Judge under s.9 of the CrPC and can try the case, and the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act is denied to the appellants who have become adults due to the delay.
Summary
The appellants, eleven persons charged with offences including murder under s.302 IPC, were juveniles at the time of the alleged crime and were therefore required to be tried by a Juvenile Court under the West Bengal Children Act, 1959. No Juvenile Court had been constituted, and the trial was conducted by an Additional Sessions Judge. While the proceedings were pending, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 came into force, repealing the state law, but still no Juvenile Court was set up. The appellants contended that an Additional Sessions Judge could not try them, and that they should benefit from the central Juvenile Justice Act. The Supreme Court held that under s.9(1) and s.9(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an Additional Sessions Judge is included in the definition of a Sessions Judge and thus has full jurisdiction to try the case. It further held that, because the appellants had become adults due to the protracted litigation, the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act could not be granted to them. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an Additional Sessions Judge is deemed a Sessions Judge for the purpose of trying offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the appellants, who were juveniles at the time of the offence but became adults due to delay, are entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 9(1), s. 9(2)
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 1986
- West Bengal Children Act, 1959s. 2(3), s. 2(h)
Subjects
Juvenile justiceAdditional Sessions JudgeSessions Judge jurisdictionCriminal ProcedureAge of criminal responsibilityDelay in trialRepeal of state law
Judgment
A ABDUL MANNAN AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
DECEMBER 5, 1995
B (K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :
S.f}-Sessions Judge-Held, includes Additional Sessions Judge.
c Juvenile Justice Act, 1986/West Bengal Children Act, 1959 :
Ss.2(3),-s.2(h) -Delinquent juveniles-Committing offences punish-
able under s.302 !PC-Juvenile Court not constitutecf-Trial conducted by
Additional Sessions Judg&-Pending proceedings juveniles became
D adults-Held, benefit of Central Act denied to them due to their own act of
keeping trial pending by protracting litigation-Not proper to inteiface as no
useful purpose under Central Act would be served.
The appellants, alongwith others, were charged with various offences
including the offence punishable under s.302 I.P.C. On the date of the
E commission of the offence and at time of the trial they were children under
the provisions of the West Bengal Children Act, 1959 and were required to
be tried by the juvenile court. However, juvenile court was not constituted
and the trial was conducted by the Additional Sections Judge. Pending
proceedings Juvenile Jnstice Act, 1986 came into force and the State Act
F stood repealed. The trial continned to be conducted by the Additional
Sessions Judge. A plea was raised on behalf of appellants that the Addi-
tional Sessions Judge was not a Sessions Judge and, therefore, he could
not proceed with the trial. The plea was rejected by the courts below.
Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal.
G Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. In view of ss.9(1) and 9(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, Sessions Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge
and the latter gets all the powers and jurisdiction of the Sessions Judg<
H to try the offences enumerated under the Code. The Additional Sessions
224
ABDUL MANNAN v. STATE 225
Judge, therefore, is competent to proceed with the trial of the juvenile A
offenders. [226-C]
2. Though at the relevant time the appellants were juveniles, by
passage of the time they have become adul<s. The benefit of the Central
Act was rightly denied to them due to their own act of keeping the trial
B
pending by protracting litigation. Interference at th.is stage would serve no
useful purpose. [226-EJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1743 of 1995.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.89 of the Calcutta High
Court in Cr!. R. No. 31 of 1989.
S.R. Bhat for the Appellants.
D.N. Mukherjee for Sinha & Das for the Respondent. D
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
E
This is an appeal against the order dated January 11, 1989 passed by
the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1989. In Sessions
Case No. 63A of 1981 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, 11
persons including the appellants are facing trial.
The appellants herein were charged for various offences including F,
the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.
Now it transpires that on the date of the commission of the offence these
appellants were under the age of 17 and 18 years. Since they were children
under the provisions of the West Bengal Children Act, 1959 [for short, "the
Act"], they were required to be tried by the Juveniles Court but no such
court had been constituted. Subsequently, pending proceedings Juveniles G
Justices Act, 1986 has come into force and the Act stood repealed. Even
under the Act, trial of the juvenile offenders requires to be conducted by
the Juveniles Court. Since no court has been constituted even under the
Central Act the necessary consequences would be that the Sessions Judge
had to conduct the trial. H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Contention was raised in the courts below that the Additional Ses-
sions Judge is not a Sessions Judge and that, therefore, he could not
proceed with t11e trial. The contention was rejected and thus this appeal
by special leave against the impugned order dated January 11, 1989.
Section 9 [1] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Act 21 of 1974] [for
B short. "the Code''] enjoins the Stale Governments to establi'h a Court of
Session for evt.:!ry sessions division. It is maU.t: clt:ar by ~ub-st:l:tiuu [3] of
Section 9 which provides that Additional Sessions Judges may be appointed
by the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Singular
includes plural. Session Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge
under the Code. Therefore, he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of
C the Sessions Judge to trv the offence' enumerated under the code. The
Additional Session Judge, therefore, is rnmpctent tu proceed with the trial
of the juverule offenders. Even though at the relevant time the appellants
were juveniles, by passage of time no longer remained to be juvenile
offenders. They are now in mid thirties.
D The object of the .Tuvehile Justice Act is to reform and rehabilitate
the juvenile offenders as useful citizens in the society. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the benefit ol the Central Act was denied to
them due tu their own act of keeping the trial pending by protracting
litigatiun, kept the case pending trial and in the meanwhile the appellants
E had crossed the age ol the juvenile offenders and became adults. We do
not think it is a proper case for our interference as no useful purpose under
Central Act would serve.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. ·
F R.P.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Juvenile justice"Sign in to search