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 :::
No comments:
Post a Comment