- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Raj Singh v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was apprehended on 22-05-1990 along with one Tulsa Bai for possession of narcotic substances—opium from Tulsa Bai and charas from the appellant. Both were tried separately and acquitted by the trial court. The State appealed. The Sessions Court reversed the appellant’s acquittal, convicted him under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. The present appeal challenges that conviction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant, whose date of birth is 09-12-1974, was a “juvenile” on the date of the alleged offence (22-05-1990) within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
- If so, whether the trial and conviction by the Court of Session, instead of the Juvenile Court, are vitiated under Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant’s birth certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana, shows his birth date as 09-12-1974; therefore, he was under 16 on the date of the offence and qualified as a juvenile.
- Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 prohibits the imprisonment of a delinquent juvenile and mandates trial by a Juvenile Court, rendering the Sessions Court trial void.
- The precedent in Raghbir v. State of Haryana, (1981) 4 SCC 210, supports the position that juveniles cannot be tried by a Court of Session.
State's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the State’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Raghbir v. State of Haryana, (1981) 4 SCC 210; AIR 1981 SC 2037 | A person found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence cannot be tried by a Court of Session and is not liable to imprisonment. | The Court relied on this decision to reinforce that the appellant, being a juvenile, should have been tried exclusively by a Juvenile Court, not the Sessions Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first verified the authenticity of the appellant’s birth certificate, confirming the birth date as 09-12-1974. Consequently, the appellant was less than 16 years old on 22-05-1990, classifying him as a “juvenile” under Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Under Section 22 of the Act, a delinquent juvenile cannot be sentenced to imprisonment and must be tried in a Juvenile Court. The Court cited Raghbir v. State of Haryana to affirm this statutory mandate. Because the appellant had been tried and convicted by the Sessions Court, a forum lacking jurisdiction over juveniles, the entire proceeding was held to be legally invalid.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Conviction and Sentence Set Aside; Entire Trial Quashed.
Direct Effect: The appellant’s conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act is annulled. The trial is void, and the appellant may seek bail in the trial court. No broader precedent was set beyond reaffirming the mandatory jurisdictional rule for juvenile offenders.
Order
1. The appellant before us has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of charas. The prosecution case is that on 22-5-1990, on suspicion the appellant and one Tulsa Bai were apprehended when opium from Tulsa Bai and charas from the appellant were recovered. The trial court acquitted both the accused in separate trials. However, on appeal by the State the judgment of the Sessions Judge was reversed in the case of the appellant by setting aside the acquittal and he had been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Hence this appeal.
2. In this appeal it is urged that the appellant was born on 9-12-1974 and as the date of alleged committal of offence was 22-5-1990, and on that day, he was a juvenile being less than 16 years of age, he could not have been tried by the Sessions Court but by the Juvenile Court and hence his conviction is bad. Unfortunately this contention has not been raised at any stage earlier. Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) defines a juvenile to be a person of less than 16 years of age. Section 2(e) of the Act defines that a juvenile who has been found to have committed an offence is a delinquent juvenile. Section 22 of the Act provides that in no case a delinquent juvenile is liable to imprisonment but has to be tried by the Juvenile Court and cannot be tried by the Court of Session. We are fortified in this view by a decision of this Court in Raghbir v. State of Haryana (1981) 4 SCC 210, AIR 1981 SC 2037.
3. It is on record that the appellant's date of birth is 9-12-1974 as per the certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana. This certificate stands reaffirmed by another certificate produced today before the Court verifying the said fact. In the circumstances, there cannot be any serious dispute about the date of birth of the appellant i.e 9-12-1974. If that is so, the trial should have been held only as provided under Section 22 of the Act so a different procedure followed leading to conviction of the appellant is vitiated.
4. We allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. We direct that the entire trial shall stand quashed and the appellant should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. It will be open to the appellant to move an appropriate application for grant of bail in the trial court.
Alert