Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.63A of 1981, where eleven accused including the appellants faced trial for various offences including murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants contended that at the time of commission of the offence they were below 17 and 18 years of age and were children under the West Bengal Children Act, 1959, requiring trial by a Juvenile Court; however, no such court had been constituted. By the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 had come into force and the West Bengal Children Act stood repealed, but no Juvenile Court had been constituted under the Central Act either. The appellants argued before the courts below that an Additional Sessions Judge is not a Sessions Judge and therefore could not proceed with the trial. The Calcutta High Court rejected this contention in Criminal Revision No.31 of 1989 by order dated 11 January 1989, leading to the present appeal by special leave. The Supreme Court granted leave and examined the statutory scheme of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 9(1) requires the State Government to establish a Court of Session for every sessions division, and Section 9(3) empowers the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. The Court held that the singular includes plural and that 'Sessions Judge' includes Additional Sessions Judge under the Code, thereby conferring on the Additional Sessions Judge all powers and jurisdiction of a Sessions Judge to try offences enumerated under the Code. Consequently, the Additional Sessions Judge was competent to proceed with the trial of the juvenile offenders, particularly since no Juvenile Court was available. The Court also addressed the appellants' juvenility. Although at the relevant time they were juveniles, by passage of time they no longer remained juvenile offenders and were in their mid-thirties. The object of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform and rehabilitate juvenile offenders as useful citizens. In the facts and circumstances, the benefit of the Central Act was denied to them due to their own act of keeping the trial pending by protracting litigation, which caused the case to remain pending until they crossed the age of juvenile offenders and became adults. The Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served under the Central Act and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judge - Additional Sessions Judge as Sessions Judge - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 9(1), 9(3) - The appellants contended that an Additional Sessions Judge could not try them because they were juveniles at the time of offence; the Supreme Court examined Section 9(1) requiring establishment of Court of Session and Section 9(3) permitting Additional Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Held that 'Sessions Judge' includes Additional Sessions Judge under the Code, and therefore the Additional Sessions Judge was competent to proceed with the trial of juvenile offenders, especially since no Juvenile Court had been constituted under the West Bengal Children Act, 1959 or the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. B) Juvenile Justice - Benefit of Juvenile Justice Act to Adult Offender - Protracted Litigation and Age Crossing - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - The appellants had been juveniles when the offence occurred but by passage of time due to protracted litigation had crossed the age of juvenile offenders and were in their mid-thirties. The object of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform and rehabilitate juvenile offenders as useful citizens; however, the Court declined to interfere because the benefit of the Central Act was denied to them due to their own act of keeping the trial pending and no useful purpose would be served under the Central Act.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an Additional Sessions Judge is a Sessions Judge and competent to conduct trial of juvenile offenders under Section 9 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Whether appellants who were juveniles at time of offence but became adults during protracted litigation are entitled to benefit of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that Additional Sessions Judge is competent to proceed with the trial of juvenile offenders because under Section 9(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Additional Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session and 'Sessions Judge' includes Additional Sessions Judge. It further held that though appellants were juveniles at the relevant time, they had crossed the age of juvenile offenders and were in mid-thirties due to protracted litigation; no useful purpose would be served under the Central Act, and the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act was denied due to their own act of keeping the trial pending.
Law Points
- Section 9(3) CrPC provides that Additional Sessions Judges appointed by High Court exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session
- 'Sessions Judge' includes Additional Sessions Judge
- Additional Sessions Judge competent to try juvenile offenders when no Juvenile Court constituted
- Juvenile Justice Act benefit denied if accused crosses juvenile age due to own protraction of litigation
