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.
The
      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.
 Assuming
      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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more