Only Juvenile Justice Board Has Power To Decide Whether An Offence Committed By A Juveline Is Henious : Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]

A Sessions Court judge cannot decide whether an offence committed by a juveline is henious and he cannot proceed with the trial. The power to decide this is only with a Juvenile Justice Board, said the Karnataka High Court, while setting aside the order of a sessions court and directing the sessions court to referr the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board.

Justice K N Phaneendra while settling aside the order passed by a sessions judge in Kolar district said "Learned Sessions Judge or the Special Judge or the Child Friendly Court, presided over by the learned Sessions Judge have absolutely no power to pass any order u/s.15 of the Act (Juvenile Justice Act). It is the statutory power vested with the Board. This has completely lost the sight of the Sessions Judge as could be seen from the order itself."

Petitioner Puneet S, an accused charged under section 366 A (Procuration of minor girl), section 376 (rape) and Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, had challenged the order passed by the sessions judge. The court after conducting an enquiry concluded that he was a minor as on the date of the alleged incident. However, without referring to the provisions of Sections 15 and 18 of the JJ Act, had simply stated that the accused has committed the heinous offence and it is purely conferred on the Special Court to decide the age u/s.34 of the JJ Act, and therefore, the Sessions Court has got jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case.

The court said "Of course, the learned Sessions Judge has got ample power u/s.34 of the JJ Act to determine the age of the Juvenile as on the date of the incident. There is no dispute that the Sessions Judge has enquired into the matter considering the Birth Certificate and the Aadhaar Card, and came to a definite conclusion that the accused was above the age of 16 years and below the age of 18 years. But without referring to Sections 15 & 18 of the Act, the provisions are mechanically mentioned in the order. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has not even cared to look into meticulously the contents of the said provisions. Only on the ground that, the offence is heinous in nature, the Sessions Judge has got power to proceed with the Trial."

It added "Considering the provisions of Sections 15 and 18 of the JJ Act, the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass order u/s.15 of the JJ Act. The Sessions Court has not even cared to look into the provisions of the Act, but in an over enthusiasm appears to have passed the above said order. Under the above said circumstances, the order is not sustainable either in law or on facts." 

Click Here To Download Judgment

[Read Judgment]