Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Swapan Roy on 24 November, 2014

Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit

  SLP(Crl.) 5699/14
                                                     1

  ITEM NO.41                                 COURT NO.5                 SECTION IIB

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                      No.5699/2014

  (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/12/2013
  in CRLR No. 3741/2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta)


  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                                        Petitioner(s)

                                                    VERSUS

  SWAPAN ROY                                                             Respondent(s)

  (With appln. (s) for ad-interim ex-parte stay and exemption from
  filing c/c and office report)

  Date : 24/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.

  CORAM :
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

  For Petitioner(s)                   Mr.   Mukul Rohatgi, A.G.
                                      Mr.   Tushar Mehta, ASG
                                      Ms.   Meenakshi Grover, Adv.
                                      Mr.   Devanshi Singh, Adv.
                                      Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das, AOR

  For Respondent(s)                   Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv.
                                      Mr. Mangaljit Mukherjee, Adv.
                                      Mr. Debarpita Basu Mukherjee, Adv.
                                      Mr. Biswajit Manna, Adv.
                                      Mrs. Sarla Chandra, AOR


                             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

This Court on 27th October, 2014, had passed the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar following order:

“Mr. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, apart from submitting that the finding recorded on SLP(Crl.) 5699/14 2 that score is absolutely unsustainable, also submitted that the entire scheme of juvenility is engaging the attention of the Central Government. While dealing with the issue, two suggestions were given to the learned Attorney General, namely, whether there is any kind of consideration as regards the reduction of age, and whether the juvenility will depend upon the nature of offence committed. To elaborate, whether the attention of the Government will be drawn to the prevailing atmosphere that most of the juveniles are engaged in horrendous and heinous crimes like rape, murder and drug-peddling, etc.” It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for Union of India, along with Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General that the concern expressed by this Court is still engaging the attention of the competent authority of the State. It is further submitted by Mr. Rohatgi that he realizes the concern of the 'Nation' at the rate the heinous crimes are committed by the juveniles, who are called juvenile under the present Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Elaborating the concern, the learned Attorney General would state that in the instant case the respondent, who claims to be a juvenile, has been alleged accused of offence wherein a gathering in a village was attacked by lethal weapons by other accused persons along with the respondent which has resulted in the death of nine persons and injuries have been suffered by several other persons. SLP(Crl.) 5699/14 3 Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Mehta would submit that the High Court has found him to be a juvenile as he was seventeen years and six months on the date of alleged occurrence, though they seriously would contend that it is factually incorrect. That is the controversy to be gone into.

Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Mehta would further propone that this kind of involvement of the juveniles under the present Act are increasing and it has actually become a matter of grave concern. We are inclined to think that the concern expressed by learned Attorney General is absolutely correct and we are of the convinced opinion that he will put it across to the competent authorities so that care is taken to the extent that the nature of the offence has some nexus with the age in question, for the cry of the collected is to live in a peaceful society that respects life, dignity and others' liberty.

Let this matter be listed in the second week of January, 2015, for further hearing.

              (Chetan Kumar)                      (H.S. Parasher)
               Court Master                         Court Master