Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2988-1999
(NITIN SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
sh
8
e
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-11-2017
ad
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel with Shri R.S.
Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
Pr
Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned GA for respondent/State.
a hy
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 21/10/1999 passed by Special Judge ad (Essential Commodities Act, 1945), Bhopal in Special Case M No.62/1997, wherein the trial Court has convicted the appellant/Nitin Sharma under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1945 and of sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-
rt and in lieu of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 ou days.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued on the technical ground C that the appellant was a juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2006. h
3. Perused the record.
ig
4. The appellant/Nitin's date of birth is 29/05/1979, which has H been verified by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal through its letter dated 09/03/2010 issued on the request of the office of Advocate General. The Board have also supplied photocopy of the marksheet of High School Certificate Examination, 1955, wherein the date of birth of Nitin Sharma S/o Pramil Sharma has been shown as 09/05/1979. The alleged offence was committed on 12/03/1997. Therefore, on the date of offence, the appellant was 17 years, 9 months and 13 days old. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is that, no doubt earlier the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was enforced till the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into force. In the present case, the learned trial Court pronounced judgment on 21/10/1999. This appeal was filed on 01/11/1999. Therefore, this appeal was considered to be sh pending on the date Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 e came into force.
ad
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits placed reliance in the case of Abdul Razzaq Vs. State of U.P. reported as 2015 Cr.L.R. (SC) 395, Pr wherein it is held that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, if a a person was not entitled to the benefit of juvenility under the Act of hy 1986 or the present Act 2000 prior to amendments in 2006, such ad benefit is available to a person undergoing sentence if he was below 18 years of age on the date of incident- Benefit can be claimed even M after decision of the case.
of
6. Learned GA for the respondent/State submits that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (for brevity Act, rt 2010) is not applicable in the present case. The Juvenile Justice Act, ou 1986 would only be applicable. C
7. Considered the same, it has been made clear earlier that the h appellant was 17 years 9 months 13 days old when the offence was ig committed and subsequently, the learned trial Court has convicted him H for offence under Section 3/6 of the Essential Commodities Act vide judgment dated 21/10/1999. This appeal has been preferred on 01/11/1999. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 came into force on 30/12/2000.
8. It would be appropriate to consider the provision of Section 20 of the Act, wherein it has been amended that, "provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.
9. In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any Court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile sh shall be in terms of clause (1) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases e to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the ad provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed". Pr a
10. This provision has been inserted in Section 20 of the hy Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 by amendment dated 22/08/2006.
ad
11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hariram Vs. State of Rajasthan & another reported as 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 4451 had M occasioned to consider the similar case in which "the of appellant/Hariram was arrested on 30/11/1998 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 148, 302, 149 read with rt Section 325 of IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge filed an order ou dated 03/04/2000, determined his age to be below 16 years on the date C of commission of the offence and after declaring him to be a juvenile, h directed that he be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, ig Rajasthan. The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in H Criminal Revision No.165/2000, filed by the respondent No.2 challenging the framing of charges was dismissed. The High Court held that the appellant is not a juvenile and the provision of the Act is therefore not applicable to him. The Hon'ble Apex Court after discussing all the provisions and the proviso of Section 20 had opined there is no controversy that the appellant is above 16 years of age on the date of commission of alleged offence and had not completed 18 years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into force. In view of Sections 2(k), 2(l) and 7(a) read with Section 20 of the Act, 2000, the provision thereof would apply to the appellant's case and on the date of the alleged incident it has to be held that he was a juvenile. The Apex Court allowed the appeal on the ground that sh notwithstanding the definition of "Juvenile" under the Act, 1986, the e appellant is covered by the definition of "juvenile" in Section 2(k) and ad the definition of "juvenile in conflict with law" in Section 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 as amended. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Pr remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer in accordance a with law within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this hy order".
ad
12. In this background, it would be safely said that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of incident, on the above interpretation as M he was not completed the age of 18 years on the date of incident and of would be entitled to get benefit of the "Act, 2000".
13. It is appropriate to mention here that the alleged offence was rt committed on 12/03/1997. The offence is with regard to not ou maintaining the stock and not displaying the rate list, therefore, it was C found to be violation of Liquid Petroleum Gas Supply and Distribution h Order, 1993. Therefore, violation of Essential Commodities Display of ig Rates and Control Order, 1977. The appellant has been sentenced for 3 H months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. The appellant has suffered the rigor of the trial and of this appeal since 13/11/1997 till today, which is almost 20 years. In the light of the same, it would not be appropriate to remit the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board after about 20 years. Thus, the conviction of accused is sustained but the sentence is liable to be quashed. In this regard, reference can be made to Gaurav Pradip Verma Vs. State of Gujrat reported as 2008 Cr.L.J. 4009.
14. In the above premises, it is deemed fit to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offences for which he has found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge and at the same time, the sentence awarded to the appellant is quashed. The appeal is, therefore, sh allowed, to that extend.
e ad (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD Pr a VICTOR hy Date: 2017.11.27 12:08:53 +05'30' ad RS M of rt ou C h ig H