" ;, ,, 9 1 WP (C) No.8573/2003 % + IN TIIE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : March 08~ 2004 \VP (C) No. 8573/2003 # Ex.Gnr.Ajit Singh~ S!o J\1a1Jesh Cha.r1d, Village & PO Chulhawali, Distt. Ferozabad (UP). ......... Petitioner through= J\1r.S.J\1. Dalal, Advocate. Vs. $The Union of India & Ors. . ........ Respondents. '" through : JVI.r.Akshay Makhija, Advocate. CORAM:- * HON'BLE 1\1R.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN HON 1BLE l\1RJUSTICE H.R MALHOTRA 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the repmter or not '? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Vijender Jain, J. (Oral) Rule D.B. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ·~ /' f .,; "' \Vas SU.u .. J..l.J..Lu...n .,., ""' was was was as a '2 m on December, thereafter for some offence of a against the and recording Court Martial commenced and the 1igorous for seven years learned petitioner General Court Martial under and sentence quashed and the prayer in that consequential benefits. The first is was a contended that after Justice (Care placed reliance on Section or means a has Section 2 an '-.£ ~ .. 6 .... £. " ..) WP (C) No.8573/2003 10ffence' as an offence punishable under being in further contended that a clause nothing has saved of it provides that the juvenile for imprisonment to the Parliament. support of his Hll.VH, le3.J.~ed of Supreme Court E. G. B arsay V s. State of Bombay 1961 sc and has placed vaau......_ on observation of the Supreme Court which n.u.uam.v obstacle in Section 7 of the Criminal we are sub-sec . I ..., a j ~· ,.._ 4 'l .. d.lc.I.J.l~\:;0 on a respect of have some of a situation, unambiguous"' and of interpretation Bench case of In re: Sessions Judge 1995 Crl.L.J. of H...-u. ...... upon a of Supreme Court the case of Gopinath Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal (Supp) Makhija~ counsel for all there were six charges against the was juvenile Therefore, was the is a is a ""'VLUIJ not subject or .. lS 1 '~ so as 5 WP (C) No.8573/2003 other general or special Act was contended that once an governed by provisions Army. 2 of the affidavit the respondent has person is other or committed an in service. was advanced by learned counsel for respondent clause of Section 6 has to be read Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 primarily with cases falling under the Criminal He has also .contended that under Army Act can be abridged under 33 of the Constitution of discipline in the armed forces. our consideration the arguments ~ aavancea Dv learned crmm:el tor both parties. Juvenile Justice (Care was passed by Parliament pursuant Nations on 201h November, 1989 on a set of standards to be adhered by all State interests of the child has been prescribed. of victims, extent to uui ... iQ.l proceedings. The Government '' "< •• • ratified relating \ 6 WP .(C) No.8573/20Q3 Convention~ has found it expedient to re-enact mind of the Child, their (1 achieve L1is Cl1ildren) Bill was standards of was passed by Parliament as Act 56 of2000. an the as set in "-"""ll..VH 2 means a is alleged same is read conjunction 'Offence~ has been defined as an the applicable in TI1ere is , 1s no afmesaid Act. Even the respondent that non Procedure Code is '' I I Y" '"" 6. " nor there. 6 !.l' ...... UlA"t' of to bare ·"7 I I I WP (C) No.8573/_2003 Justice Board defined effect: - (1) district or a of aforesaid it Board power to deal law case E.G. Barsay~s case '~ '' iS is Homes "' " as 8 said Act case committed offences and, therefore~ as manner contained any legislative Section 37 a Bench 1986 ana a that although was • i . • ,_J_ as ~ at present 9 \VP (C) No.8573/2003 above. we m1swer the reference terms:- age of that as the was a override the provision of (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Under 1986, means a age sixteen years or a girl be said that defined under Section 2 not attained has not attained aware that persons are recruited the Parliament in its IC'<UUIU has changed as appearing 2 of 1986 Act 2 (k) is to following . .,J~ .. <\rticle 33 of " or , mere fact a or a 10 age l WP (C) No.8573/2003 means a person who has ofa£e·~· . ""-'' been enhanced to 18 years~ and the Army is of the ye·ar 1 it legislattlre wanted to keep persons are under were juvenile we no arguments of have no applicability to the person Act. TI1e reliance placed the respondent on of India is also misplaced. Article 33 Parliament members of cwm.o.ri forces discharge of Article 33 (Cme & Protection of of Parliament and absence ·said regard to its jurisdiction or v ~ " I 11 \VP (C) No.8573/2003 Gopinath Ghosh's case (supra) said Gopinath was convicted Section of the Indian Penal Code having Gopinath. never questioned the jurisdiction of offence of murder. He did even delinquent within the meaning of the Act Comt '" ....... However, of intendment and with clause (f) of beneficial provisions Article 39 of the Constitution provides that the State securing that children are facilities to develop in a heal thy conditions of freedom and dignity and that against exploitation and abandonment, we consider it contention raised in Court for the first time to the provisions being extended to he was otl1e1wise entitled to it" furtlJer "TI1erefore, the conviction of the appellant for committed an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentence imprisonment for life imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed by fue High Court are unsustainable and they must be set aside." TI1erefore, we cannot overlook or nullify the beneficial a ,_,.__.._U-1- progressive statute. We quash the proceedings of ~;.z been ~ ~ was '\ " SA 1 12 WP (C) No.8573/2003 Court Martial. TI1e petitioner be set free We have already undergone 17 months of imprisonment 7 years inflicted on the perusal of charges we find that charge nos. 1 & 3 to was to to has 2004 of the charges are for period As we already that General be set free. if 5 at against petitioner de novo. the charges de novo, they will keep 17 incarcemtion stands disposed H.RIVIalhotra (Judge) matter