Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siddu @ Siddeshwar, was arraigned as an accused in Special Case No.4/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (Special Judge), for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The petitioner claimed to be a juvenile (aged 18 years) at the time of the alleged offence and sought transfer of his case to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Special Judge, by order dated 22.04.2015, held that the petitioner was aged more than 18 years as on the date of the alleged offence and could be tried before the Special Court itself. The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in Criminal Petition No.200335/2015 challenging an order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar, refusing to transfer the case. The High Court, by order dated 09.03.2015, disposed of that petition with a direction to the Special Judge to conduct an inquiry into the age of the accused and pass appropriate orders. The Special Judge, however, without conducting a proper preliminary inquiry as mandated under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), passed the impugned order holding the petitioner to be above 18 years. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the order dated 22.04.2015. The High Court observed that the Special Judge had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 7A of the JJ Act, which requires a preliminary inquiry to determine the age of the accused. The court noted that the petitioner had produced school records indicating his date of birth as 02.06.1997, which would make him a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence. The High Court held that the determination of juvenility is a crucial issue and must be done in accordance with the law. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Special Judge to conduct a fresh inquiry into the age of the petitioner, considering all relevant documents and evidence, and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 34 of POCSO Act, 2012 - The Special Judge passed an order under Section 34 of POCSO Act holding the accused to be above 18 years without conducting a preliminary inquiry as required under Section 7A of the JJ Act. The High Court quashed the order and directed the Special Judge to conduct a proper inquiry into the age of the accused, considering the school records and other evidence, and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Held that the determination of juvenility must be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the JJ Act, and the benefit of juvenility cannot be denied without such inquiry. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012 can determine the age of an accused without conducting a preliminary inquiry as mandated under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (Special Judge) in Special Case No.4/2015, and directed the Special Judge to conduct a fresh inquiry into the age of the petitioner in accordance with Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Juvenile Justice Act
- 2015
- Section 7A
- POCSO Act
- 2012
- Section 34
- Cr.P.C.
- Section 482
- Age determination
- Preliminary inquiry
- Benefit of juvenility
