TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court and I am in agreement with my learned Brother on that point. Since the appeal can be decided on this ground, I refrain from expressing any opinion on the question dealt with and decided by my learned Brother on interpretation of Section 6 of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. P. P. Naolekar, J. - The decision interpreting various provisions of one statute will not have the binding force while interpreting the provisions of another statute. Section 6 of the Act has been construed by a 4-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramji Missar case [ 1962 (12) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT] and that will have the binding force while interpreting the same Section in same statute and the decision of the Constitution Bench interpreting provisions of the 1986 Act and the 2000 Act would not be held to be a decision on interpretation of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act would apply to the accused who is under 21 years of age on the date of imposition of punishment by the trial court and not on the date of commission of the offence. If on the date of the order of conviction and sentence by the trial court the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39; and refused to grant the benefit on that basis. 4. It is, no doubt, true that the provision is beneficial and benevolent in nature and no 'technical' objection should be raised that such plea was not taken before the Courts below. [Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1984CriLJ168 ]. But in my opinion, there must be credible and trustworthy evidence in support of such plea. In the present case, a certificate in the form of 'Scholar Record Transfer Certificate' is annexed wherein the date of birth of the appellant was shown as June 28, 1962. The certificate was not on record either before the trial Court or before the High Court. From the 'True Copy', it is clear that it is purported to have been issued by the Principal only on February 10, 2007. Thus, it cannot be said that there is 'credible evidence' or 'trustworthy material' that the appellant was less than 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence. In my considered opinion, such question cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court and I am in agreement with my learned Brother on that point. 5. Since the appeal can be decided on this ground, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, the Additional District Sessions Judge found the accused persons guilty and imposed the punishment which was confirmed by the High Court as mentioned hereinabove. The accused appellant- Sudesh Kumar has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted only one point that the accused at the time of the commission of the crime was below 21 years of age which is apparent from the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused wherein age of the accused was given by the accused as 20 years and from the transfer certificate, filed along with special leave petition, issued by the Principal, Sanatan Dharma Junior High School, Dehradun, which shows that the appellant was born on 28.6.1962. It is, therefore, submitted that it is clearly established that the accused appellant on the date of the offence, i.e. 7.3.1981, was below 21 years of age and as such was entitled to consideration and benefit under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience). 8. On the other hand, it is urged by Shri Jatind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t desirable to deal with the offender under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The court is also required to record reasons for passing sentence of imprisonment on such offender. In another case in the matter of Satyabhan Kishore and Anr.v. The State of Bihar (1972) 3 SCC 350, this Court (a 3-Judge Bench) reiterated the principle laid down by the Court in Daulat Ram case (supra) and Shelat, J. speaking for the Court held that Section 6 lays down an injunction as distinguished from discretion under Sections 3 and 4 not to impose a sentence of imprisonment on an offender, unless reasons are recorded. From the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that while imposing a sentence on an accused who is below 21 years of age and who is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment which is not the imprisonment for life, the court shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender it is not desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act. It further mandates that if the court wants to impose a sentence of imprisonmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Taking first the case of Ramji, the elder brother, we entirely agree with the High Court in their construction of Section 6. The question of the age of the person is relevant not for the purpose of determining his guilt but only for the purpose of the punishment which he should suffer for the offence of which he has been found, on the evidence, guilty. The object of the Act is to prevent the turning of youthful offenders into criminals by their association with hardened criminals of mature age within the walls of a prison. The method adopted is to attempt their possible reformation instead of inflicting on them the normal punishment for their crime. If this were borne in mind it would be clear that the age referred to by the opening words of Section 6(1) should be that when the court is dealing with the offender, that being the point of time when the court has to choose between the two alternatives which the Act in supersession of the normal penal law vests in it, viz., sentence the offender to imprisonment or to apply to him the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act.... The Court further said: 19. We shall now proceed to consider one question which was mooted before us i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. It is the date of offence that he was conflict with law. When a juvenile is produced before the competent authority and/or court, he has not committed an offence on that date, but he was brought before the authority for the alleged offence which he has been found guilty to have committed. Therefore, what was implicit in the 1986 Act has been made explicit in the 2000 Act. Sinha, J. in his concurring judgment said that having regard to the constitutional and statutory scheme it was not necessary for Parliament to specifically state that the age of juvenile must be determined as on the date of commission of the offence and the same is inbuilt in the statutory scheme. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that while determining the age of a juvenile the Court has interpreted the provision for giving benefit to a juvenile who has committed an offence and was in conflict with law. The offence having been committed, he came in conflict with law on the date of commission of the offence which is relevant for determining the age for giving protection under the 1986 Act and the 2000 Act. 13. It can be noticed from Ramji Missar case (supra) and Pratap Singh case (supra) that the obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argues that on August 30, 1969 when the incident took place, appellants 3 and 4 were less than 21 years of age and, therefore, they ought to have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. This contention was neither taken in the sessions court nor in the High Court. True, that this Court has taken the view that in appropriate cases such a contention may be entertained by this Court for the first time. But the difficulty in accepting the submission of the learned Counsel is that there is no credible evidence on the record showing that appellants 3 and 4 were less than 21 years of age when the offence was committed. Counsel says that those two accused had given their ages in their statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, and if the trial Judge doubted the correctness thereof, he could have had the two accused medically examined in order to ascertain their age This seems to us a difficult burden for any trial Judge to undertake. The age given by the two accused in their statements had no special significant in the absence of a proper plea under the Probation of Offenders Act.... For the aforesaid re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
