.In the case in question, the petitioner is alleged to have
committed the offences under Sections 279,337 and 338.
Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving is
the ingredient of those offences. In Cambridge Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, Third Edition, the word 'rash' when used as
adjective means careless or unwise, without thought for what
might happen or result, meaning thereby that while doing
something, the person did not think about the costs involved. In
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Third Edition, the
word 'negligence' when used as adjective means not being
careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are
your responsibility. Therefore, when the allegation was to the
effect that a person has acted in a rash and negligent manner, it
cannot be said that he has acted intentionally. In view of the
above, the petitioner in the case on hand cannot be said to have
acted intentionally while causing injury to the victim. Or in
other words, hurt or grievous hurt was caused to the child not by
any intentional act of the petitioner. Without the juncture of the
mental element like intention, infringement or violation of a right
is not possible. Contextually, hurt or grievous hurt was caused
to the child in the motor accident resulted from the rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner. But the right of the child
cannot be said to have been infringed or violated by the
petitioner by his act. The incident in which the child has
sustained injuries can only be said to be caused accidentally out
of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have
intentionally caused hurt or grievous hurt to the child in the case
on hand to put the same within the jurisdiction of the Sessions
Court, Pathanamthitta. Therefore, the Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta, which is designated as the children's court
cannot be said to have any authority to try the case. The Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the
committal court is the appropriate court to try the case.
13. In Abdul Aziz's case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court
had occasion to deal with a situation of similar nature and held as
follows:-
"..........Even if the victim in an accident case is
aged below 18 years, such cases registered under
Sections 279,337,338 or 304(A) of IPC, being cases
arising out of an accident need not be tried by the
Children's Court, constituted under Section 25 of
the Central Act 4/2006. But, other cases involving
violation of 'child rights', acts done with the
intention to violate or infringe the 'child rights' if
done with the knowledge that by his act the child
right is likely to be violated then such offences are
to be tried by the Children's Court. The learned
Magistrates, before whom such charge sheets are
filed, are to apply their minds and find whether
offences complained of involve violation of the
'child rights'. If so, such cases are to be committed
to the Court of Sessions (The children's Court),
following the procedure prescribed under Sections
207 to 209 Cr.P.C. "
14.In view of the discussion hereinabove made and in view of
the aforesaid dictum, this Court is of the view that Annexure A1
committal order will not sustain in the eye of law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016
Crl.MC.No. 2910 of 2013
P.M.MATHEW,
V
STATE OF KERALA,
Citation:2016 CRLJ 4766
1.The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.635/2010 of Konny
Police Station. The offences alleged in the crime are those
punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') read with Section 134(a) and
(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.8.2010 at about 8.30
hours an Alto car bearing Regn.No.KL-3T 2803 driven by the
petitioner through Vellapara-Chinamukku public road from
west to east in a rash and negligent manner hit on an Activa
scooter bearing Regn.No.KL-03 917 driven through Konny-
Pathanapuram public road. In the accident, the rider of the
Activa scooter and the pillion rider on it sustained injuries.
3.CW2, the pillion rider in the Activa Scooter was a minor child
aged 12 years. Therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Pathanamthitta found the case exclusively triable by
the Children's court and thereupon, vide proceedings
No.151/2010, committed the matter to the District and
Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the designated
Children's Court as per Section 25 of the Commission for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). The
certified copy of the order in C.P.No.151/2010 is appended
along with this petition as Annexure A1.
4.The District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta received the
case which was committed to it and numbered it as
S.C.No.227/2011.
5.Annexure A1 committal order dated 15.12.2010 is sought to be
quashed in this petition on the reason that while passing the
said order, the court has committed a grave error. The copy of
the final report in Crime No.635/2010 dated 17.9.2010 is also
appended along with this application as Annexure A2. It is
contended that the final report will in no way divulge any
offence committed in violation of the child rights. In the case
on hand, the only allegation was that the petitioner due to his
rash and negligent driving of an Alto car, caused injury to
CW2, who is a child. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any
intentional violation of child right as contemplated by Section
25 of the Act and it cannot be construed as an offence
infringing the right of the child. It is contended by the counsel
that in the said circumstances, the committal court is
absolutely unjustified in committing the case on its file to the
District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the
designated Children's Court. The case ought to have been
tried by the committal court itself.
6.Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent
were heard.
7.Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner has
addressed this Court citing Abdul Aziz.M. v. Circle
Inspector of Police [2011(4) KLT 1003] in support of the
grounds raised in the petition. It is contended by him that the
minor child was injured in a motor accident due to the rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner and the
rights of the child cannot be said to be violated in the accident.
According to him, in the aforesaid circumstances, the case on
hand cannot be taken as exclusively triable by the Children's
Court, but one triable by the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Pathanamthitta itself.
8.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that infringement of
the right of a child is involved in the case and therefore,
District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta being the
designated Children's Court is the authorised court to deal
with the matter. According to him, therefore, the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta is perfectly justified in
committing the case to the District and Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta by Annexure A1 passed in C.P.No.151/2010
and interference is uncalled for.
9.In this connection, it is pertinent to have a look at the definition
of the offences involved in the crime. Section 279 I.P.C.
provides for punishment for rash driving or riding on a public
way. It reads as follows:-
"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.--
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way
in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human
life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both."
Section 337 provides punishment for causing hurt by act
endangering life or personal safety of others.
"337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or
personal safety of others.--Whoever causes hurt to
any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently
as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of
others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both."
Section 338 provides punishment for causing grievous hurt by
act endangering life or personal safety of others. It reads:-
"338. Causing grievous hurt by act
endangering life or personal safety of others.--
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing
any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both."
Section 134(1)(a) of the Act deals with the duty of a driver in
case a motor accident was occurred and injury was sustained by
a person. Section 39 I.P.C. provides for the meaning of the word
'voluntarily'. It reads as follows:-
"39."Voluntarily".--A person is said to cause an
effect "voluntarily"when he causes it by means whereby
he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time
of employing those means, he knew or had reason to
believe to be likely to cause it."
Therefore, a person is said to do something voluntarily, when he
causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it or he knew or
had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. In the offences
aforementioned, the word 'voluntarily' or 'intentionally' is
lacking. Section 25 of the Act is quoted hereinbelow:-
"25. Children's Courts.--For the purpose of
providing speedy trial of offences against children or
of violation of child rights, the State Government
may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification, specify at least a court
in the State or specify, for each district, a Court of
Session to be a Children's Court to try the said
offences:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if--
(a) a Court of Session is already specified as a
special court; or
(b) a special court is already constituted,
for such offences under any other law for the time
being in force."
In view of the provision, the court of Sessions is designated as
the children's court to try the offences against children or of
violation of child rights in a speedy manner.
10.The Act was enacted in the back drop of infringement or
violation of the several rights guaranteed to the children under
the Constitution of India. The Constitution in itself incorporate
several safeguards against violation of the rights guaranteed to
the children. It enable the State Governments to make special
provisions for children and also direct that the policy of the State
shall be such that the tender age of the children is not abused.
The Government is also committed to give children opportunities
and facilities to develop in healthy atmosphere with required
freedom and dignity, and to ensure that their constitutional and
legal rights are protected. In view of the aforesaid provisions
contained in the Constitution, the Commissions for Protection of
Child Rights Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The objects
and reasons behind the same are extracted hereinbelow:
"India has the largest child population in the world.
Well being of children is a universal aspiration.
Constitution of India guarantees several rights to the
children including equality before law, free and
compulsory primary education to all children of the
age group of six to fourteen years, prohibition of
trafficking and forced labour of children and
prohibitions of employment of children below the age
of fourteen years in factories, mines or hazardous
occupations. The Constitution enables the State to
make special provisions for children and directs that
the policy of the State shall be such that their tender
age is not abused. The Government is committed to
give children opportunities and facilities to develop
in healthy atmosphere with required freedom and
dignity, and to ensure that their constitutional and
legal rights are protected."
11. It follows therefrom that only when offences violating any
of the rights of a child are involved in a case, it needs to be tried
by a Children's Court as contemplated under Section 25 of the
Act.
12.In the case in question, the petitioner is alleged to have
committed the offences under Sections 279,337 and 338.
Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving is
the ingredient of those offences. In Cambridge Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, Third Edition, the word 'rash' when used as
adjective means careless or unwise, without thought for what
might happen or result, meaning thereby that while doing
something, the person did not think about the costs involved. In
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Third Edition, the
word 'negligence' when used as adjective means not being
careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are
your responsibility. Therefore, when the allegation was to the
effect that a person has acted in a rash and negligent manner, it
cannot be said that he has acted intentionally. In view of the
above, the petitioner in the case on hand cannot be said to have
acted intentionally while causing injury to the victim. Or in
other words, hurt or grievous hurt was caused to the child not by
any intentional act of the petitioner. Without the juncture of the
mental element like intention, infringement or violation of a right
is not possible. Contextually, hurt or grievous hurt was caused
to the child in the motor accident resulted from the rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner. But the right of the child
cannot be said to have been infringed or violated by the
petitioner by his act. The incident in which the child has
sustained injuries can only be said to be caused accidentally out
of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have
intentionally caused hurt or grievous hurt to the child in the case
on hand to put the same within the jurisdiction of the Sessions
Court, Pathanamthitta. Therefore, the Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta, which is designated as the children's court
cannot be said to have any authority to try the case. The Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the
committal court is the appropriate court to try the case.
13. In Abdul Aziz's case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court
had occasion to deal with a situation of similar nature and held as
follows:-
"..........Even if the victim in an accident case is
aged below 18 years, such cases registered under
Sections 279,337,338 or 304(A) of IPC, being cases
arising out of an accident need not be tried by the
Children's Court, constituted under Section 25 of
the Central Act 4/2006. But, other cases involving
violation of 'child rights', acts done with the
intention to violate or infringe the 'child rights' if
done with the knowledge that by his act the child
right is likely to be violated then such offences are
to be tried by the Children's Court. The learned
Magistrates, before whom such charge sheets are
filed, are to apply their minds and find whether
offences complained of involve violation of the
'child rights'. If so, such cases are to be committed
to the Court of Sessions (The children's Court),
following the procedure prescribed under Sections
207 to 209 Cr.P.C. "
14.In view of the discussion hereinabove made and in view of
the aforesaid dictum, this Court is of the view that Annexure A1
committal order will not sustain in the eye of law.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1
order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta in C.P.No.151/2010 and
all further proceedings initiated on its basis by the District and
Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in S.C.No.227/2011 stand
quashed. The Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta is directed to
remit the records back to the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Pathanamthitta for proceeding with the trial as
expeditiously as possible.
MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE
Print Page
committed the offences under Sections 279,337 and 338.
Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving is
the ingredient of those offences. In Cambridge Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, Third Edition, the word 'rash' when used as
adjective means careless or unwise, without thought for what
might happen or result, meaning thereby that while doing
something, the person did not think about the costs involved. In
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Third Edition, the
word 'negligence' when used as adjective means not being
careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are
your responsibility. Therefore, when the allegation was to the
effect that a person has acted in a rash and negligent manner, it
cannot be said that he has acted intentionally. In view of the
above, the petitioner in the case on hand cannot be said to have
acted intentionally while causing injury to the victim. Or in
other words, hurt or grievous hurt was caused to the child not by
any intentional act of the petitioner. Without the juncture of the
mental element like intention, infringement or violation of a right
is not possible. Contextually, hurt or grievous hurt was caused
to the child in the motor accident resulted from the rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner. But the right of the child
cannot be said to have been infringed or violated by the
petitioner by his act. The incident in which the child has
sustained injuries can only be said to be caused accidentally out
of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have
intentionally caused hurt or grievous hurt to the child in the case
on hand to put the same within the jurisdiction of the Sessions
Court, Pathanamthitta. Therefore, the Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta, which is designated as the children's court
cannot be said to have any authority to try the case. The Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the
committal court is the appropriate court to try the case.
13. In Abdul Aziz's case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court
had occasion to deal with a situation of similar nature and held as
follows:-
"..........Even if the victim in an accident case is
aged below 18 years, such cases registered under
Sections 279,337,338 or 304(A) of IPC, being cases
arising out of an accident need not be tried by the
Children's Court, constituted under Section 25 of
the Central Act 4/2006. But, other cases involving
violation of 'child rights', acts done with the
intention to violate or infringe the 'child rights' if
done with the knowledge that by his act the child
right is likely to be violated then such offences are
to be tried by the Children's Court. The learned
Magistrates, before whom such charge sheets are
filed, are to apply their minds and find whether
offences complained of involve violation of the
'child rights'. If so, such cases are to be committed
to the Court of Sessions (The children's Court),
following the procedure prescribed under Sections
207 to 209 Cr.P.C. "
14.In view of the discussion hereinabove made and in view of
the aforesaid dictum, this Court is of the view that Annexure A1
committal order will not sustain in the eye of law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016
Crl.MC.No. 2910 of 2013
P.M.MATHEW,
V
STATE OF KERALA,
Citation:2016 CRLJ 4766
1.The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.635/2010 of Konny
Police Station. The offences alleged in the crime are those
punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') read with Section 134(a) and
(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.8.2010 at about 8.30
hours an Alto car bearing Regn.No.KL-3T 2803 driven by the
petitioner through Vellapara-Chinamukku public road from
west to east in a rash and negligent manner hit on an Activa
scooter bearing Regn.No.KL-03 917 driven through Konny-
Pathanapuram public road. In the accident, the rider of the
Activa scooter and the pillion rider on it sustained injuries.
3.CW2, the pillion rider in the Activa Scooter was a minor child
aged 12 years. Therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Pathanamthitta found the case exclusively triable by
the Children's court and thereupon, vide proceedings
No.151/2010, committed the matter to the District and
Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the designated
Children's Court as per Section 25 of the Commission for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). The
certified copy of the order in C.P.No.151/2010 is appended
along with this petition as Annexure A1.
4.The District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta received the
case which was committed to it and numbered it as
S.C.No.227/2011.
5.Annexure A1 committal order dated 15.12.2010 is sought to be
quashed in this petition on the reason that while passing the
said order, the court has committed a grave error. The copy of
the final report in Crime No.635/2010 dated 17.9.2010 is also
appended along with this application as Annexure A2. It is
contended that the final report will in no way divulge any
offence committed in violation of the child rights. In the case
on hand, the only allegation was that the petitioner due to his
rash and negligent driving of an Alto car, caused injury to
CW2, who is a child. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any
intentional violation of child right as contemplated by Section
25 of the Act and it cannot be construed as an offence
infringing the right of the child. It is contended by the counsel
that in the said circumstances, the committal court is
absolutely unjustified in committing the case on its file to the
District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the
designated Children's Court. The case ought to have been
tried by the committal court itself.
6.Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent
were heard.
7.Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner has
addressed this Court citing Abdul Aziz.M. v. Circle
Inspector of Police [2011(4) KLT 1003] in support of the
grounds raised in the petition. It is contended by him that the
minor child was injured in a motor accident due to the rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner and the
rights of the child cannot be said to be violated in the accident.
According to him, in the aforesaid circumstances, the case on
hand cannot be taken as exclusively triable by the Children's
Court, but one triable by the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Pathanamthitta itself.
8.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that infringement of
the right of a child is involved in the case and therefore,
District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta being the
designated Children's Court is the authorised court to deal
with the matter. According to him, therefore, the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta is perfectly justified in
committing the case to the District and Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta by Annexure A1 passed in C.P.No.151/2010
and interference is uncalled for.
9.In this connection, it is pertinent to have a look at the definition
of the offences involved in the crime. Section 279 I.P.C.
provides for punishment for rash driving or riding on a public
way. It reads as follows:-
"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.--
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way
in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human
life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both."
Section 337 provides punishment for causing hurt by act
endangering life or personal safety of others.
"337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or
personal safety of others.--Whoever causes hurt to
any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently
as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of
others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both."
Section 338 provides punishment for causing grievous hurt by
act endangering life or personal safety of others. It reads:-
"338. Causing grievous hurt by act
endangering life or personal safety of others.--
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing
any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both."
Section 134(1)(a) of the Act deals with the duty of a driver in
case a motor accident was occurred and injury was sustained by
a person. Section 39 I.P.C. provides for the meaning of the word
'voluntarily'. It reads as follows:-
"39."Voluntarily".--A person is said to cause an
effect "voluntarily"when he causes it by means whereby
he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time
of employing those means, he knew or had reason to
believe to be likely to cause it."
Therefore, a person is said to do something voluntarily, when he
causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it or he knew or
had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. In the offences
aforementioned, the word 'voluntarily' or 'intentionally' is
lacking. Section 25 of the Act is quoted hereinbelow:-
"25. Children's Courts.--For the purpose of
providing speedy trial of offences against children or
of violation of child rights, the State Government
may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification, specify at least a court
in the State or specify, for each district, a Court of
Session to be a Children's Court to try the said
offences:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if--
(a) a Court of Session is already specified as a
special court; or
(b) a special court is already constituted,
for such offences under any other law for the time
being in force."
In view of the provision, the court of Sessions is designated as
the children's court to try the offences against children or of
violation of child rights in a speedy manner.
10.The Act was enacted in the back drop of infringement or
violation of the several rights guaranteed to the children under
the Constitution of India. The Constitution in itself incorporate
several safeguards against violation of the rights guaranteed to
the children. It enable the State Governments to make special
provisions for children and also direct that the policy of the State
shall be such that the tender age of the children is not abused.
The Government is also committed to give children opportunities
and facilities to develop in healthy atmosphere with required
freedom and dignity, and to ensure that their constitutional and
legal rights are protected. In view of the aforesaid provisions
contained in the Constitution, the Commissions for Protection of
Child Rights Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The objects
and reasons behind the same are extracted hereinbelow:
"India has the largest child population in the world.
Well being of children is a universal aspiration.
Constitution of India guarantees several rights to the
children including equality before law, free and
compulsory primary education to all children of the
age group of six to fourteen years, prohibition of
trafficking and forced labour of children and
prohibitions of employment of children below the age
of fourteen years in factories, mines or hazardous
occupations. The Constitution enables the State to
make special provisions for children and directs that
the policy of the State shall be such that their tender
age is not abused. The Government is committed to
give children opportunities and facilities to develop
in healthy atmosphere with required freedom and
dignity, and to ensure that their constitutional and
legal rights are protected."
11. It follows therefrom that only when offences violating any
of the rights of a child are involved in a case, it needs to be tried
by a Children's Court as contemplated under Section 25 of the
Act.
12.In the case in question, the petitioner is alleged to have
committed the offences under Sections 279,337 and 338.
Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving is
the ingredient of those offences. In Cambridge Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, Third Edition, the word 'rash' when used as
adjective means careless or unwise, without thought for what
might happen or result, meaning thereby that while doing
something, the person did not think about the costs involved. In
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Third Edition, the
word 'negligence' when used as adjective means not being
careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are
your responsibility. Therefore, when the allegation was to the
effect that a person has acted in a rash and negligent manner, it
cannot be said that he has acted intentionally. In view of the
above, the petitioner in the case on hand cannot be said to have
acted intentionally while causing injury to the victim. Or in
other words, hurt or grievous hurt was caused to the child not by
any intentional act of the petitioner. Without the juncture of the
mental element like intention, infringement or violation of a right
is not possible. Contextually, hurt or grievous hurt was caused
to the child in the motor accident resulted from the rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner. But the right of the child
cannot be said to have been infringed or violated by the
petitioner by his act. The incident in which the child has
sustained injuries can only be said to be caused accidentally out
of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have
intentionally caused hurt or grievous hurt to the child in the case
on hand to put the same within the jurisdiction of the Sessions
Court, Pathanamthitta. Therefore, the Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta, which is designated as the children's court
cannot be said to have any authority to try the case. The Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the
committal court is the appropriate court to try the case.
13. In Abdul Aziz's case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court
had occasion to deal with a situation of similar nature and held as
follows:-
"..........Even if the victim in an accident case is
aged below 18 years, such cases registered under
Sections 279,337,338 or 304(A) of IPC, being cases
arising out of an accident need not be tried by the
Children's Court, constituted under Section 25 of
the Central Act 4/2006. But, other cases involving
violation of 'child rights', acts done with the
intention to violate or infringe the 'child rights' if
done with the knowledge that by his act the child
right is likely to be violated then such offences are
to be tried by the Children's Court. The learned
Magistrates, before whom such charge sheets are
filed, are to apply their minds and find whether
offences complained of involve violation of the
'child rights'. If so, such cases are to be committed
to the Court of Sessions (The children's Court),
following the procedure prescribed under Sections
207 to 209 Cr.P.C. "
14.In view of the discussion hereinabove made and in view of
the aforesaid dictum, this Court is of the view that Annexure A1
committal order will not sustain in the eye of law.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1
order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta in C.P.No.151/2010 and
all further proceedings initiated on its basis by the District and
Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in S.C.No.227/2011 stand
quashed. The Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta is directed to
remit the records back to the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Pathanamthitta for proceeding with the trial as
expeditiously as possible.
MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment