Skip to content


State Vs. Bansilal Chhotalal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Ref. No. 116 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Bom13; 1957CriLJ50
ActsBombay Children Act, 1948 - Sections 8, 9 and 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 29-B; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302
AppellantState
RespondentBansilal Chhotalal and anr.
Advocates:A.A. Mandgi, Assistant Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- - he should have proceeded to try the case as a juvenile court under the bombay children act, 1948. the learned magistrate having failed to do so and having committed the case against accused 1 to the court of session, the order of committal passed against bansilal chottalal, the child, is quashed......from that in respect of the adult and to commit only the adult accused to the court of session for trial. bansilal chhotalal being a child within the meaning of the bombay children act, the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to commit him to the court of session for trial. he should have proceeded to try the case as a juvenile court under the bombay children act, 1948.the learned magistrate having failed to do so and having committed the case against accused 1 to the court of session, the order of committal passed against bansilal chottalal, the child, is quashed. we further direct that the said accused bansilal chottalal be tried by the juvenile court and that accused 2 bai lilavati be tried before the court of session for the offence under section 302, i. p. c. after separating her.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. Bansilal Chhotalal, who is found on evidence taken before the learned Sessions Judge at Baroda to be below the age of sixteen and Bai Lilavati were committed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Baroda, to stand their trial before the Court of Session at Baroda for an offence under Section 302. I. P. C.

The learned Sessions Judge has made a recommendation to this Court that the order of committal passed against Bansilal Chhotalal, accused 1, be quashed, that the said accused Bansilal Chhotalal be ordered to be tried before the Juvenile Court and that it be ordered that Bai Lilavati, accused 2, be tried separately from accused 1 Bansilal Chhotalal.

2. In the District of Baroda a Juvenile Court has been constituted and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Baroda, exercises the power Of the Juvenile Court under Section 8, Bombay Children Act, 1943. By Section 9, Bombay Children Act, a Juvenile Court is the only Court competent to try cases in which a child is charged with the commission of an offence and no other Court has jurisdiction to try the child.

Under Section 13 of the Act, in the case of a trial in which a child is being tried together with an adult in accordance with the provisions of the Act if the Magistrate is of opinion that the case is a fit one for committal to the Court of Session, he is bound to separate the trial in respect of the child from that in respect of the adult and to commit only the adult accused to the Court of Session for trial. Bansilal Chhotalal being a child within the meaning of the Bombay Children Act, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to commit him to the Court of Session for trial. He should have proceeded to try the case as a Juvenile Court under the Bombay Children Act, 1948.

The learned Magistrate having failed to do so and having committed the case against accused 1 to the Court of Session, the order of committal passed against Bansilal Chottalal, the child, is quashed. We further direct that the said accused Bansilal Chottalal be tried by the Juvenile Court and that accused 2 Bai Lilavati be tried before the Court of Session for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. after separating her trial from the trial of Bansilal Chhotalal. Reference accepted.

3. Reference accepted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //