Supreme Court of India
ABDUL MANNAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
- Decided
- 5 December 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, B.N. KIRPAL
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 224 · 1995 INSC 837
- Also cited as
- (1996) 1 SCC 665
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 225, margin D
This is an appeal against the order dated January 11, 1989 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1989. In Sessions Case No. 63A of 1981 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, 11 persons including the appellants are facing trial.
p. 225, margin E
The appellants herein were charged for various offences including the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Now it transpires that on the date of the commission of the offence these appellants were under the age of 17 and 18 years. Since they were children under the provisions of the West Bengal Children Act, 1959 [for short, "the Act"], they were required to be tried by the Juveniles Court but no such court had been constituted. Subsequently, pending proceedings Juveniles Justices Act, 1986 has come into force and the Act stood repealed. Even under the Act, trial of the juvenile offenders requires to be conducted by the Juveniles Court. Since no court has been constituted even under the Central Act the necessary consequences would be that the Sessions Judge had to conduct the trial.
p. 225, margin E
Contention was raised in the courts below that the Additional Sessions Judge is not a Sessions Judge and that, therefore, he could not proceed with t11e trial. The contention was rejected and thus this appeal by special leave against the impugned order dated January 11, 1989. Section 9 [1] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Act 21 of 1974] [for short. "the Code''] enjoins the Stale Governments to establi'h a Court of Session for evt.:!ry sessions division. It is maU.t: clt:ar by ~ub-st:l:tiuu [3] of Section 9 which provides that Additional Sessions Judges may be appointed by the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Singular includes plural. Session Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge under the Code. Therefore, he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to trv the offence' enumerated under the code. The Additional Session Judge, therefore, is rnmpctent tu proceed with the trial of the juverule offenders. Even though at the relevant time the appellants were juveniles, by passage of time no longer remained to be juvenile offenders. They are now in mid thirties.
p. 226, margin A
The object of the .Tuvehile Justice Act is to reform and rehabilitate the juvenile offenders as useful citizens in the society. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit ol the Central Act was denied to them due tu their own act of keeping the trial pending by protracting litigatiun, kept the case pending trial and in the meanwhile the appellants had crossed the age ol the juvenile offenders and became adults. We do not think it is a proper case for our interference as no useful purpose under Central Act would serve.
p. 226, margin D
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Appeal dismissed. ·
p. 226, margin E