Skip to content


Umesh Chandra Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 800 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1976WLN201
AppellantUmesh Chandra
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....1 and 2 penal code--sections 302, 363 & 364--offence committed by accused 16 years old in tonk district--application of children's act not extended 10 tonk district--held, offence cannot be tried by the children's court only--addl. sessions judge jaipur city is competent to try it.; the children court constituted for jaipur district is not empowered to enquire in to or try the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in tonk district, merely because the sessions case against the petitioner has been transferred from the court of the additional session judge, tonk as the court of the additional sessions judge, jaipur city, the additional sessions judge no. 1, jaipur city is, therefore, competent to try the petitioner for the offences with which he was charged. - ..........rajasthan raj patra dated 29th july, 1971, and that it was never brought into force in the area of tonk district in which the offences were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. it was however, contended by mr. s.r bajwa on behalf of the petitioner that although the children act was not extended to the area of tonk district, yet when the case was transferred from the court of the additional sessions judge no. 1, jaipur city, under section 528, old cr.pc. sssthe trial of the petitioner must have been only in accordance with the provisions of the children act which has come into force in the district of jaipur on the 17th day of august 1971. by notification published in the rajasthan raj patra dated 29th july, 1971. it was further urged by mr. bajwa that the jurisdiction of the.....
Judgment:

K.D. Sharma, J.

1. This is an application in revision filed by Umesh Chandra against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Jaipur City, dated 29th JUNE, 1974, by which to petitioner's player for being tried for an offence of murder in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Children Act, was rejected.

2. The petitioner Umesh Chandra, who was alleged to be a minor having not attained the age of 16 years, at the time of commission of the aforesaid offence, was charged with having committed the murder of Ajaisingh son of Nand Singh whom he was said to have kidnapped on 12th March, 1973, at 11 a.m. from Gandhi Pathshala Chak u, in order that he might be murdered A report of the incident was lodged with the. police at police station, Newai, on 12th March, 1973, at about 2 p m. The police registered a criminal case under Sections 363 and 364, IPC against the petitioner and made usual investigation into it. The petitioner was arrested on 12th March, 1973, and a knife and his clothes were recovered from his house at his instance and in consequence of his information. He gave another information to he police, which led to the recovery of the dead body of Ajai Singh, which was lying near the temple of Bheruji at Newai The police collected other evidence against the petitioner and eventually filed a challan against him in the court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, First Class No. 1, Tonk, under Sections 302, 363 and 364, IPC. The learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate perused all the relevant papers and committed the petitioner to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, for trial on the aforesaid charges. Thereafter on 4th November, 1973, upon an application for transfer filed by Umesh Chandra, the case was transferred by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City to the court of the Additional Sessions judge No. 2, Jaipur City for trial in accordance with law. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City proceeded to try the petitioner but the latter objected to the commencement of the trial on the ground that he being a minor boy having not attained the age of 16 years should be exclusively tried by Children Court only in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Children Act. It appears that the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, could not decide the objection raised by the petitioner relating to jurisdiction of his court to try the case as the case was again transferred from his court by an order of the Sessions Judge to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 heard the parties and came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a minor below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and that the Children Court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry over the area of Tonk in which the offences were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come-up to this Court in revision.

3. I have carefully gone through the record and beard the arguments advanced by Mr. S.R. Bajwa for the, petitioner and Mr. H.N. Calla and Mr. S.B. Mathur for the State assisted by Mr. V.S. Dave for the complainant.

4. The short question that arises for determination in this revision-petition is whether the petitioner's case has to be governed by the provisions of the Children Act and whether he should be tried by the Children Court only. Before giving any decision on this question, I may observe that the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, received the assent of the President on the 29th day of August, 1970 This Act extends to the whole of the State of Rajasthan. Sub-section (7) of Section 1 thereof clearly lays down that it shall come into force in the State on such date as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette. This subsection further empowers the State Government to appoint different dates for different areas of the State of Rajasthan. It is not disputed before me that this Act was brought into force in Jaipur and Ajmer Districts of Rajastban State on 17th August, 1971, by notification No. SW/RCA (1)/70 dated 27th July 1971, published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated 29th july, 1971, and that it was never brought into force in the area of Tonk District in which the offences were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. It was however, contended by Mr. S.R Bajwa on behalf of the petitioner that although the Children Act was not extended to the area of Tonk District, yet when the case was transferred from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, under Section 528, old Cr.PC. sssthe trial of the petitioner must have been only in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act which has come into force in the District of Jaipur on the 17th day of August 1971. by notification published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated 29th July, 1971. It was further urged by Mr. Bajwa that the jurisdiction of the Children Court is exclusive and it extends to all cases in which a child is charged with any offence irrespective of the gravity thereof. In support of his above contention. Mr. Bajwa relied upon in re Rup Singh 1975 CLJ 500 wherein it was held that the entire proceedings against the petitioner before the Magistrate First Class and in the Sessions Court were vitiated because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam (No. 15 of 1970). On behalf of the non-petitioner it was argued, on the other hand, by Mr. H.N. Calla and Mr. S.B Mathur that unless the Children Act comes into force in the area of Tonk District on any particular date appointed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, the Children Court constituted for Jaipur District is not competent to enquire into or try the instant case against the petitioner merely because the case has been transferred by an order of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions Under Clause (1c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 528 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, any Sessions Judge, on an application presented to him for transfer of a case could pass an order that any particular case be transferred from one criminal court to another criminal court in the same Sessions Division if he was of opinion that such as order was expedient for the ends of justice. The present case was transferred in the same Sessions Division firstly from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City and then from there to the court of the Additional Session No. 1, Jaipur City. On account of such transfers the courts of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 and 1 Jaipur City were competent to try this case although they were not empowered under Section 177 to 184 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure to try this case, but the transfer orders passed by the Sessions Judge could not have the effect of investing the Children Court, appointed for the area of Jaipur City only with the powers or jurisdiction to enquire into or try any offence which was committed outside the area of Jaipur District for which it was constituted, unless the Children Court was constituted for the area of Tonk District in which the offences had taken place. Unless the Children Act was extended to Took District in which the offences were alleged to have been committed and the Children Court was constituted for that area, it was not open to the petitioner to contend that the case against him should be exclusively dealt with by the Children Court constituted for Jaipur District under Section 5 of the Children Act merely on the ground that the case was transferred for some reason from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The Children Court constituted for Jaipur District is disqualified to try the offence committed in another area. This disqualification to try the offence committed in Tonk District could be removed by extending the jurisdiction of the Children Court for Jaipur District to the area covered by Tonk District but no such notification extending the jurisdiction of the Children Court at Jaipur has been issued by the State Government. Consequently, I am of the view that the Children Court constituted for Jaipur District is not empowered to enquire into or try the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner to Tonk District, merely because the sessions case against the petitioner has been transferred from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Took, to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City is, therefore, competent to try the petitioner for the offences with which be was charged. In this view of the legal position, I do not think it necessary to decide the question whether the petitioner was a child below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offences as defined by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970.

6. The revision-petition has, therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed. Mr. Bajwa orally prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. The leave is refused because there is no substantial question of law involved in this case, which requires authoritative decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.


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