Juvenile Justice Act 2000 Applies To Revision Plea Of Person Who Committed Offence At 17 Yrs Age When 1986 Act Was In Force: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('JJ Act, 2000') would be applicable in revision, upon the conviction and sentence of a 49 year old person in respect of an offence committed by him in the year 1991, at the age of 17 years, when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force. 

Taking note of an Explanation added to Section 20 of the JJ Act, 2000, by virtue of an amendment which came into force in 2006, Justice G. Girish observed that the determination of juvenility of a juvenile in a pending case at the time of commencement of 2000 Act shall be in terms of Section 2(l) of the JJ Act, 2000, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of the Act. 

Section 20 of the JJ Act, 2000 lays down 'Special provision in respect of pending cases' which requires the Magistrate to forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board without passing any order against them. 

The Explanation added by way of the amendment states that in all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of Section 2(l), and that the provisions of the Act, 2000, would apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed. 

The Case 

The revision petitioner, who was 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, was alleged to have manipulated the certified copy of the relevant page of his admission register, issued from the school, in order to make it appear that his year of birth was earlier. The revision petitioner resorted to the above act since the emigration rules of Saudi Arabia permitted employment of persons aged 21 years and above only at the relevant time. 

He was however apprehended when he attempted to apply for a Passport, and the Passport Officer filed a complaint in that regard before the Police. 

The Magistrate convicted the revision petitioner for the commission of an offence under Sections 468 ('Forgery for purposes of cheating') and 471 ('Using as genuine a forged document') I.P.C and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 ('offences and penalties'). It found that as per Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 ('JJ Act, 1986'), prevailing at the time of commission of the crime, a boy who had not attained the age of 16 years and a girl who had not attained the age of 18 years were treated as juvenile.

However, during the trial, JJ Act, 2000 came into force and at the time of the Magistrate rendering the judgment, the law relating to juveniles which prevailed, was the JJ Act, 2000, which defines juveniles as persons who have not completed the eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. 

The Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction under Section 468 I.P.C and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 471 IPC. 

It is on being aggrieved by the same that the present revision petition was filed. 

Findings of the Court 

The Court ascertained that at the time of the Magistrate rendering the verdict, there was a lack of clarity as to whether, for pending cases, the term 'juvenile' referred under Section 20 of the JJ Act, 2000 had to be taken as a person who had not completed 18th year of age as defined under Section 2(k) of the said Act, or as a boy who had not attained the age of 16 years as defined under Section 2(h) of the JJ Act, 1986. 

It noted that in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2005), the Apex Court had laid down that the 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding instituted under the 1986 Act in any court or authority, if the person had not completed eighteen years of age as of 1st April 2001, when the 2000 Act came into force. 

As per the afore decision of the Apex Court, the Court, in this case, noted that the JJ Act, 2000 would not apply to the revision petitioner since the latter was aged 27 years on 1st April 2001. However, taking note of the Amendment to Section 20 which added the explanation to the provision, the Court observed:

"...for the purpose of the offence involved in this case, petitioner herein ought to have been considered as a juvenile since as per Section 2(l) of the said Act “a juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18th year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. That being so, as of now, Section 20 of the JJ Act, 2000 as it existed after the amendment made by Act No.33 of 2006, is applicable to the petitioner unless there is any provision in the JJ Act, 2015 repugnant to its applicability". 

It further noted that Section 25 of the JJ Act, 2015 protects and affirms the application of the 2000 Act to all pending proceedings. 

The Court thus found that the law applicable in this case to the revision petitioner was that of the JJ Act, 2000. 

It also dismissed the arguments of the revision petitioner that he could not be simultaneously convicted for the offences under Section 468 IPC as well as Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 on finding the two to be distinct offences. 

"...the act of the petitioner committing forgery by making corrections in the certified copy of his admission register is one thing, which is distinct from his subsequent act of knowingly furnishing false information before the Passport authority making use of the above forged document. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on that score,"  the Court said. 

It thereby concluded that the revision petitioner ought to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board, instead of passing any sentence, and that the Board shall then pass orders in accordance with the JJ Act, 2000. 

Therefore, while confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner for the commission of an offence under Section 468 I.P.C and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, it set aside the sentence imposed by the appellate court, and directed the former to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board. 

The Court further suggested that considering the advanced age of the revision petitioner, Section 15(1)(c) and 15(1)(d) which deal with the performance of community service and payment of fine respectively, would be suitable penalties for the revision petitioner, but left the same to be decided in accordance with the discretion of the Juvenile Justice Board. 

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Advocates M. Asokan and Devaprasanth P.J. 

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 725

Case Title: Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala & Anr. 

Case Number: Crl. R.P. No. 1993 of 2006

Click Here To Read/Download The Order