Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. - the maximum period of sentence is only three years -Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. The plea can be raised before any Court and at any point of time. -2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Section  7(A)  of  the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and
      Protection) Act, 2000.
The plea can be raised before any Court and  at any point of time.
 the age of the accused  appellant  was  less than 18 years at the time of the incident.
It has been brought to  our
      notice that the  appellant has undergone about 8 years  in  jail.
      appellant falls within the definition of “juvenile” under Section 2(k)
      of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children)  Act,  2000.
He can raise the plea of juvenility at any time and before  any  court
      as per the mandate of Section 7(a) and has rightly  done  so.
 It  has
      been proved before us, as per the procedure given in the  Rule  12  of
      the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2007, and the  age  of  the  accused
      appellant has been determined  following  the  correct  procedure  and
      there is no doubt regarding it.

  On the question of sentencing, we believe that the  accused  appellant
      is to be released.
In the present matter, in addition to the fact that
      he was a juvenile at the time of commission of  offence,  the  accused
      appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Therefore,  the  conviction
      order passed by the High Court is not  sustainable  in  law.
      without conceding, that even if  the  conviction  is  upheld,  Upendra
      Pradhan has undergone almost 8 years of sentence, which is  more  than
      the maximum period of three years prescribed under Section 15  of  the
      Juvenile Justice Act of 2000.
Thus, giving him the benefit  under  the
      Act, we strike down the decision of the High  Court.  -2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)