Saturday, 8 February 2014

Juvenile who has attended majority can not be held guilty on the basis of plea of guilt of “guardian” of the Juvenile



Thereafter,   this   Court   proceeded   to   held   that   an   order 
passed   disposing   of   the   case   on   the   basis   of   plea   of   guilt   of   the 
“guardian” of the Juvenile who had attained majority was null and void 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
High Court on its Own Motion 
... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra &
Krishna Balasaheb Mandlik

SUO MOTU REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2013
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3569 OF 2012

CORAM  :  A.S. OKA & G.S.PATEL , JJ.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :   23rd October, 2013
JUDGMENT (PER A.S. OKA, J.):­

 Citation;2013(3)ABR119 Bom


In terms of the judgment and order dated 8 th March, 2013, 
the learned Principal District Judge, Pune has submitted a report dated 
2nd July, 2013. The copies of the said report were supplied to Shri S.V

Kotwal, the learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae, the learned 
APP and the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent.  We 
have   perused   the   report   with   the   assistance   of   the   learned   counsel 
representing   the   parties   as   well   as   the   learned   Amicus   Curiae.   After 
conclusion of hearing, we had called for the true copies of the orders 
passed   by   the   Juvenile   Justice   Board,   Pune   in   82   cases   which   were 

received by this Court on 26th September 2013.
2.               The report of the learned Principal District Judge records 
that he had deputed Shri S.V
. Yarlagadda, the learned District Judge­13 
to peruse the record of  cases disposed of by the Juvenile Justice Board, 
Pune   (for   short   “the   Board”)   on   16 th  September,   2012   which   was   a 
“special drive day” for disposal of cases.   We must note here that the 
earlier report of the Principal District Judge, Pune records that on 16 th 
ig
September, 2012, 1848 cases were fixed before the  Board, out of which 
1833 cases were disposed of on that very day.  The report records that 
133   cases   were   disposed   of   as   the   Juveniles   in   conflict   with   law 
pleaded   guilty in   these cases. In as many as 1700 cases, orders of 
closure were passed by the the Board under Section 258 of the Criminal 
Procedure   Code,   1973   (for   short   the   said   “Code”).     There   is   a 
subsequent report submitted by the learned Principal Magistrate of the 
Board which is dated 31st January, 2013.  It is stated in the report that 
in  terms of  order  dated  14th  September,  2012  passed  by the  learned 
Principal   District   Judge,   Pune,   she   declared   16th  September,   2012, 
which was a Sunday as “the day of Special Drive” for disposal.   Even 
the said report confirms that 1700 cases were disposed of under Section 
258 of the said Code and 133 cases were disposed of by recording the 
plea of guilt of the Juveniles in conflict with law. While disposing of Suo 
Motu Revision Application No.1 of 2013 by judgment and order dated 

8th  March,   2013,   in   paragraph   18,   the   Division   Bench   has   observed 
thus:­
“18. .......   We   fail   to   understand   as   to   how   133   cases   were 
disposed of in a day wherein the Juvenile in conflict in 
law pleaded guilty. The Principal District Judge will have 
to call for the record of all 133 cases excluding the present 
case and to scrutinize the same. If it is found that there is 
any   illegality,   appropriate   action   of   initiating   suo   motu 
proceedings will have to be taken. At this stage, we may 

note that on the same day, 1700 orders have been passed 
under Section 258 of the said Code.  Passing orders under 
Section 258 of the said Code requires application of mind 
and   reasons   are   required   to   be   recorded   as   per   the 
mandate  of  Section  258  of  the   said   Code.     We   wonder 
how the orders under Section 258 were passed in 1700 
cases on a single day which was a “Special Drive Day”.
3.
We   have   minutely   perused   the   report   submitted   by   the 
learned Principal District Judge.  The 133 cases referred to in the earlier 
order included the case in which an order of remand was passed in Suo 
Motu Revision Application No.1 of 2013. The report gives a break­up of 
the cases disposed of on recording a plea of guilt on 16 th  September, 
2012. On inspection it was found that in fact there were 130 such cases. 
The said break­up is as under :­

A]

4   cases   in   which   the   concerned   juveniles   who   had 
attained majority appeared before the Board and their 
B]
plea of guilt was recorded;
44 cases in which juveniles in conflict with law were 
still minors and where the plea of guilt their guardians 
was recorded ;
82 cases in which the Juveniles in conflict in law had 
C]
attained   majority,   but   the   plea   of   their   respective 

“guardians” was recorded.  
The   charts   showing   the   details   of   the   cases   have   been 
annexed to the said report.
We had called for the copies of the orders passed by the 
4.
Juvenile   Justice   Board   in     82   cases   falling   in   category   C.     We   have 
perused   the   said   orders.     The   said   orders   are   in   predetermined, 
standardized and stereotyped formats and it appears that in individual 
cases, only the details were filled in.  Only by way of illustration, we are 
reproducing the order passed in STC No.100 of 2000.
“STC.No.100/2000.
Exh.18
BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PUNE
Date of commission of offence  : 06/10/2000
Date of report or complaint : 06/10/200
Name of complainant  : State of Maharashtra

Name   of   Juvenile   in   conflict  : Anil Prakash Chavhan,
with law
Age   15   years,   R/at   –   Kamgar 
Putala   Zopadpatti,   Shivajinagar, 
Pune.
: Offence punishable U/s.394   r/w. 
34 of Indian Penal Code.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE :­
Offence complained of
That, on 06/10/2000 at about 1.30 hours at Shivajinagar in­
front   of   Godown   you   the   Juvenile   in   conflict   with   law 
alongwith   major   accused   in   furtherance   of   your   common 
ig
intention,   voluntarily   caused   hurt   to   Complainant   –   Anil 
Jalindar   Londhe   committed   theft   of   Cash   amount   of 
Rs.1,150/­, One Wrist Watch and Driving Licence from the 
custody of Complainant and thereby committed an offence 
punishable  under   Section   394   r/w. 34  of   the  Indian  Penal 
Code and within my cognizance.
(Particulars are read­over and explained to the Juvenile in 
conflict with law and his guardians).
Q1) Have you received the copies of police papers ?
Ans. Yes.
Q2)
Have   you  understood  the   particulars   of   offence   now  read­
over and explained to you ?
Ans.  Yes.
Q3) Do you plead guilty ?
Ans. I plead guilty.
sd/­
Signatures of Guardian of J.C.L.
sd/­
(Mrs. R.M. Shaikh)
Principal Magistrate,
  J.J. Board, Pune

The   Juvenile   in   conflict   with   law   along   with   his 
guardian   are   present   and   pleaded   guilty   for   the   offence 
charged   against   him.     His   pleading   guilty   seems   to   be 
voluntary.    Considering  the   submissions,   I   proceed   to   pass 
following order to meet the ends of Justice.
ORDER
(1)
The J.C.L. namely Anil Prakash Chavhan, Age 15 years, R/at 
– Kamgar Putala Zopadpatti, Shivajinagar, Pune is held guilty 
vide Section 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the 
offence punishable under Section 394 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal 
(2)

Code.
He   is   further   released   on   probation   of   good   conduct   and 
placed   under   the   care   of   his   guardian   without   surety,   for 
good   behaviour   and   well   being   of   the   Juvenile   in   conflict 
with law for the period of 6 months.
(3)
Bail   Bonds   of   the   Juvenile   in   conflict   with   law   stand 
cancelled and surety is discharged.
(4)
Relevant record of his conviction shall be removed after the 
expiry of the period appeal.
(5)
Property   be   disposed   of   accordingly   as   per   the   order   of 
Regular Criminal Court in the case arising out of same FIR 
against major accused.
Date : 16/09/2012
sd/­
(Adv. Mrs. Vandana Hakay)
    Member, J.J.B. Pune.
sd/­
[Mrs. R.M. Shaikh]
Principal Magistrate,
    Juvenile Justice Board, Pune

   sd/­
 (Adv. Mr. Sunil Patil)
  Member, J.J.B. Pune.”

Apart from the fact that all orders appear to be in a pre­
conceived formats, there are certain striking common features in these 
82 cases which are as under :­
(a) Though the learned District Judge after perusal of the 
record   in   these   82   cases,   found   that   as   on   16 th 
September, 2012, the Juveniles in conflict with law had 
attained  majority, in  all  the  orders, respective  ages of 
the Juveniles in conflict in law are shown as below 18. 

None   of   these   orders   record   that   the   Juveniles   had 
attained majority. The respective ages of the Juveniles 
shown   in   the   orders   are   of   the   dates   on   which   the 
alleged offences were committed ;
(b) The  plea   of  guilt   of   the  guardians  has  been  recorded 
though  the  Juveniles who had attained majority were 
present.   The   signatures   of   the   guardians   have   been 
obtained below the plea of guilt.  In these 82 cases, the 
plea of Juveniles in conflict with law who had already 
attained majority was not at all recorded;
(c) In all orders, there is an identical direction given that 
the Juvenile be released on probation of good conduct 
and   that   he   should   be   placed   under   the   “care   of   his 
guardian” for a period of six months without surety. It is 
difficult to understand as to how the Juveniles who had 
attained majority were placed under the “care of their 
respective guardians”;

(e) No reasons have been recorded for giving the  benefit of 
the probation to the Juveniles. The report of the learned 
District   Judge   specifically   records   that   without 
obtaining   the   social   investigation   reports,   the   orders 
have been passed in uniform manner;
(f)   In 82 cases, wherever there were co-­accused, the cases 
against them  were   closed  by exercising  powers  under 
Section   258   of   the   Code.     This   shows   that   the 
of cases;
There   are   some   other   very   important   striking   features 
6.

endeavour was to somehow dispose of a large number 
which we have noticed.  Out of the Juveniles in these 82 cases, in case 
of Juvenile Lakhan D. Londhe, there were two cases registered under 
Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred 
to as the “IPC”).  In case of one Ashok L. Vajani, there were as many as  
5 cases under Section 379 of the IPC.  In case of one Pravin H. Salunke, 
there were 6 cases registered under Section 379 of the IPC.  In case of 
Kedar  D. Waghmare,  there  were   two cases registered  under   Sections 
454, 457 and 380 of IPC.  In case of one Rupesh G. Kamble, there were 
two cases under Section 379 of the IPC.   In case of Satyawan J. Kale, 
there were three cases under Section 379 of the IPC.  Same is the case 
with one Aakash S. Kamble. The orders in these cases do not take note 
of the very important aspect of registration  of multiple cases against 

these Juveniles. We must note that the learned Principal District Judge 
has noted that there were 20 cases in which offences were of serious 
nature   punishable   with   imprisonment   of   more   than   7  years.  But  the 
orders show non consideration of these important aspects.  Uniformly in 
all   82   cases,   the   Juveniles   have   been   let   off   on   probation   of   good 
conduct by placing them under “the care of their respective guardians”. 
We have quoted one specimen order in these 82 cases.  On the date of 

commission of alleged offence, his age was 14 years.   On the date of 
passing order, his age was nearly 26.  He was also placed under the care 
of his “guardian”.
In Suo Motu Revision Application No.1 of 2013, this Court 
7.
has   in   detail   referred   to   the   manner   in   which   one   such   case   was 
disposed of.  It was a case where the offence alleged was under Section 
302 of IPC.   This court has already held that where the Juvenile had 
already attained majority, the plea of his “guardian” cannot be recorded 
and such a plea is no plea at all in the eyes of the law.   As far as the  
plea of guilt is concerned, in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Judgment in 
Suo Motu Revision Application, this Court had held thus :­
“19.
Now we go to the second very serious aspect of the case. 
Even if we proceed on the footing that the Juvenile himself 
pleaded   guilty,   in   view   of   Section   252   of   the   said   Code, 
mechanically the plea of guilt could not have been accepted 

and the Juvenile could not have been held guilty especially 
when on 2nd  November 2002, the Board had recorded the 
plea of not guilty of the Juvenile himself.       We must note 
here that the offence alleged against the Juvenile is a very 
serious  offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian 
Penal Code.  As far as the conviction based on the basis of 
plea of guilt is concerned, the law is well settled.  We may 
make a useful reference to the law laid down by the Apex 
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v.  Sukhdev Singh 
and Another [(1992)3 SCC 700].  In paragraph 52 it is held 
.....The   plea   of   the   accused   must,   therefore,   be   clear, 
unambiguous   and   unqualified   and   the   Court   must   be 
satisfied   that   he   has   understood   the   nature   of   the 
allegations   made   against   him   and   admits   them.   The 
Court must act with caution and circumspection before 
accepting   and   acting   on   the   plea   of   guilt.   Once   these 
requirements   are   satisfied   the   law   permits   the   Judge 
trying   the   phase   to   record   a   conviction   based   on   the 
plea of guilt. If, however, the accused does not plead guilty 
or the learned Judge does not act on his plea he must fix a 
date for the examination of the witnesses i.e. the trial of the 
case. There is nothing in this Chapter which prevents the 
accused from pleading guilty at any subsequent stage of the 
trial. But before the  trial  Judge accepts and acts. on that 
plea he must administer the same caution unto himself. This 
plea of guilt may also be put forward by the accused in his 
statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code.”
“52.

thus:
                                               (emphasis added)
20.
Therefore, some  application  of  mind was  required  on the 
part of the Board before acting on the plea.     As we have 
noted earlier , the order is passed in a preconceived format 
which  does not  show  any  application  of  mind.  Holding a 

Juvenile guilty of  the offence punishable under Section 302 
read with Section 34 of the IPC on the basis of the plea of 
guilt recorded of his mother is a serious matter which has 
been   dealt   with   mechanically   and   casually   in   the   present 
case.”
8.
Thereafter,   this   Court   proceeded   to   held   that   an   order 
passed   disposing   of   the   case   on   the   basis   of   plea   of   guilt   of   the 
“guardian” of the Juvenile who had attained majority was null and void 
ig
and by setting aside the order of the Board, an order of remand has 
9.
been passed.
A  perusal  of the  list of 82  cases shows that none of  the 
offences alleged are petty offences.   In most of the cases, the offences 
are under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.   There are offences 
under Sections 457 and 380 under the Indian Penal Code in some cases. 
In one case, there are   offences alleged punishable under Section 399 
and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.   Perusal of the orders passed by the 
Board in these cases show that the plea of guilt by the guardians of the 
Juveniles   in   conflict   with   law   has   been   mechanically   accepted   and 
irrespective of seriousness of the offences, the Juveniles have been set 
at   liberty   on   probation   of   good   conduct.   Section   15   of   the   Juvenile 
Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of   Children)   Act,   2000   (hereinafter 
referred to as the “said Act”) provides that on completion of enquiry 
11 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2014 21:38:24 :::
pmw
12
jud-SMRN-1.13
against   Juvenile   and   on   finding   that   the   Juvenile   is   involved   in   the 
alleged offences, the  Board can passed one of the 7 dispositional orders 
which have been set out in Section 15(1) of the said Act.   One of the 
seven options is to release Juvenile in conflict with law on probation 
and place him under the care of the parent or guardian or fit person. 
One option available is of directing that Juvenile be placed in care of a 
Special   home   for   a   maximum   period   of   three   years.     In   case   of   a 
ig
Juvenile who is over 14 years, he can be ordered to pay fine. In all the 
82 cases the  Board has not recorded any reasons as to why only one of 
the seven available modes was adopted.
Suffice it to say that in all the 82 cases, the Juveniles have 
10.
been held guilty of offences complained against them.  The orders have 
been passed not on the basis of plea of guilt of the Juveniles but on the 
plea of their “guardians”. The “guardians” had no authority to plead 
guilty as all the Juveniles in conflict with law had completed age of 18 
years   prior   to   16th  September   2012.     Thus,   the   Board   has   held   the 
Juveniles   as   guilty   of   offences   without   there   being   any   plea   of   guilt 
made by the Juvenile himself.
11.
We are constrained to observe that in these 82 cases, there 
is a complete non­application of mind by the Juvenile Justice Board.  In 
fact,   passing   such   orders   in   mechanical   manner   amounts   to   doing 
12 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2014 21:38:24 :::
pmw
13
jud-SMRN-1.13
violence to the provisions of the said Act which is enacted for a special 
purpose.   The   orders   based   only   on   the   basis   of   plea   of   guilt   of   the 
guardians of the Juvenile who had already attained majority are null 
and void. Such a manifest illegality cannot be tolerated by this Court. 
Therefore, we will be failing our duty if we allow such orders to stand. 
Therefore, there is no option but to exercise Suo Motu power of revision 
Before   we   part   with   the   order,   we   must   note   another 
ig
12.
under Section 53 of the said Act.
serious aspect of the case.  A perusal of the report of the learned District 
Judge shows that 130 cases were disposed of on 16 th September, 2012 
by the Juvenile Justice Board at Pune on the basis of a plea of guilt by 
the Juveniles.   If any plea was to be recorded in accordance with the 
provisions of the said Code, before recording the plea, the particulars of 
accusations   against   the   Juvenile   are   required   to   be   read   over   and 
explained.   The orders do record that the particulars were read over. 
After reading over the particulars the plea has to be recorded.   After 
recording the plea, the Juvenile Justice Board was required to satisfy 
itself   that   the   plea   was   voluntary   and   deserves   acceptance.     The 
Juvenile Justice Board was required to hear the Juvenile in conflict with 
law before passing final order.  Only after hearing the Juvenile and after 
an application of mind to the material on record and after consideration 
of the  fact and circumstances of each case, the Juvenile Justice Board 
13 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2014 21:38:24 :::
pmw
14
jud-SMRN-1.13
could   have   passed   orders   in   individual   cases.     All   130   cases   were 
independent cases.  Even if a very brilliant Judge was to dispose of one 
such case, he could not have completed the work of recording the plea 
and   passing   orders   in   anyway   less   than   15   minutes.     We   fail   to 
understand as to how 130 cases were disposed of on one working day 
by recording plea of guilt of the Juvenile in conflict with law.  We must 
note here that in addition to these 130 cases, about 1700 cases were 
ig
disposed   of   by   passing   orders   under   Section   258   of   the   said   Code. 
Orders   under  Section  258  of  the   said   Code   are  discretionary  orders. 
The   said   orders   require   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case   and   an 
application of mind.  Section 258 requires reasons to be recorded.  We 
are unable to comprehend as to how such a large number of cases were 
disposed of on a single working day.  It was humanly impossible for any 
Judicial Officer to achieve this.  Obviously all this was done just to show 
that   a   large   number   of   cases   were   “successfully”   disposed   of   on   a 
“Special Drive Day”.  While doing so, the provisions of the said Act have 
been set at naught. This is a mockery of legal proceedings.   It throws 
the entire criminal justice delivery system into jeopardy.  It is said that 
justice   delayed   is   justice   denied.     Equally,   justice   hurried   is   justice 
buried, and that is exactly what seems to have happened on the day of 
this   so­called   “Special   Drive”.     Our   procedures   are   not   always   only 
impediments to the course of justice.  They embody vital safeguards.  In 
14 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2014 21:38:24 :::
pmw
15
jud-SMRN-1.13
criminal matters particularly, these safeguards are meant to protect our 
society.  As we have noted, serious criminal offences have been simply 
dispensed   with   as   if   they   were   trivial.     Adults   have   been   treated   as 
minors and have been allowed to evade the full force of the law.  The 
entire   criminal   justice   delivery   system   has   in   that   sense   been 
There are certain other features mentioned in the report of 
ig
13.
undermined.
the learned Principal District Judge.   He has stated that in the report 
neither   the   Juveniles   nor   their   “guardians”   have   made   a   complaint 
about the manner in which pleas were recorded. There was no reason 
for him to mention this. If Juveniles who had attained majority were let 
off   in   this   fashion,   obviously   they   are   beneficiaries   of   the   illegality 
committed and obviously they would not make any complaint.   In the 
report, the learned Principal District Judge has noted that in some the 
cases   disposed   of   on   that   date,   the   “guardians”   of   Juvenile   had 
appointed   advocates.   However,   except   in   one   case,   the     presence   of 
advocates   is   not   shown   in   any   of   the   cases   disposed   of   on   16 th 
September, 2012.   The report further records that Social Investigation 
Reports of the Juveniles were not obtained.   Lastly, the report records 
that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class who was the Principal 
Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board had not undergone Juvenile 
15 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2014 21:38:24 :::
pmw
16
jud-SMRN-1.13
Justice   training.     Moreover,   she   had   not   offered   the   subject   of   child 
psychology     at   any   stage.   This   aspect   will   have   to   be   noted   by   the 
Registrar General of this Court so that qualified Judicial Magistrates will 
be posted as the Principal Magistrates of the Juvenile Justice Boards.
14.
Hence, we pass the following order :­
ORDER
(i) We   exercise   power   under   Section   53   of   the   Juvenile 
ig
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 of 
entertaining   Suo   Motu   Revision   against   the   orders 
dated   16th  September,   2012   passed   by   the   Juvenile 
Justice  Board, Pune   in  82  cases  which  are  set out  in 
annexure   IV   to   the   report   of   the   learned   Principal 
District Judge;
(ii) Suo   Motu   Revision   Applications   shall   be   numbered 
separately in all 82 cases and notice thereof be issued 
only to those Juveniles in conflict with law who were 
let off on probation.  Notice shall be also issued to the 
State Government;
(iii) The record of all 82 cases be called for.  Notice be made 
returnable after 12 weeks;
16 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2014 21:38:24 :::
pmw
17
jud-SMRN-1.13
(iv) Notices   of   the   Juveniles   in   conflict   with   law   shall   be 
sent to the learned Principal District Judge, Pune who 
shall ensure that the notices are served through proper 
authority;
(v) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar 
General of this Court as well as to the Secretary of the 
( A.S. OKA, J ) 
 ( G.S.PATEL, J )
ig
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2014 21:38:24 :::

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment