Sat Pal vs State of Haryana

S. S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relates to the quashment of the impugned orders passed by the Children Court, Sirsa dated 181989, appellate Court dated 27989 and also for recalling the order of this Court dated 2911990, passed in Criminal Revision No. 960 of 1989 with regard to proceedings relating to FIR No. 233 dated 371986 under sections 302/148/149 IPC Police Station, Dabwali, District Sirsa.

In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that the petitioner who is named as one of the accused in the aforesaid double murder case was granted bail by the children Court at Sirsa on 1281989 on the ground that the petitioner was below 16 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence.

Later on the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sirsa, acting as a Children Court under the Haryana Children Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) vide his order dated 181989 held that the date of birth of Satpal petitioner is 2231970 and so he was more than 16 years of age on the date of commission of offence. Aggrieved against the said order Satpal petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who vide his order dated 27989, upheld the order passed by the Children Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the orders of the Courts below the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 960 of 1989, and the same was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 2911990. copy whereof is Annexure P4.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

It was mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Central Act) came into force on 2101987 much before the commission of the offence on 371988, that after coming into force of the aforesaid `Central Act'' the `State Act'' stood repealed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below for determining the age of the petitioner are without jurisdiction, and, are liable to be quashed whereas, the impugned order passed by this Court is liable to be recalled. It was further submitted that only the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Juvenile Court, Bhiwani was competent to determine the question about the age of the petitioner under the Central Act. The Juvenile Court under the Central Act, referred to above was constituted only on 10.1.1989. In that situation the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa under the State Act was competent to go on with the inquiry for determining the age of the petitioner as the said inquiry was initiated in April, 1988. Till the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Juvenile Court, Bhiwani started functioning, it cannot be said that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa ceased to function.

Another important aspect of the case is that Section 63 of the Central Act clearly indicates that the repeal shall not affect anything duly done or suffered under the previous operation of any law so repealed; or any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed. Besides under clause (d) of the proviso to said section any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, shall not be affected and any such investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not been passed. The clauses (a) to ( d) to proviso of Section 63 of the Central Act would thus be sufficient to save the legal proceedings conducted by the Chileren Court, Sirsa, under the State Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Bhiwani, is competent to determine the age of the petitioner.

The next important aspect of the case is that since the petitioner has already been held to be over 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence by the Children Court and the said order has been upheld right up to this Court, there does not seem to be any further need to refer the matter back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Juvenile Court, at Bhiwani.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to all the Courts concerned including Sessions Judge, Sirsa, so that the trial Court could proceed expeditiously according to law.