IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3636 of 2011(D) ------------------------- SC.485/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------ MUHAMMED RASHEED,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.SEETHY,MATHILAKATH HOUSE,MANNAM PO, PARAVUR VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT &STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3636 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES: A1: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO:576 OF 2006 OF THE NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. M.C. No: 3636 OF 2011 (D) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused in Sessions Case No:485/2010, pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. Crime No:576/2006 was registered by North Paravoor Police Station against the accused alleging commission of offences under sections 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 2. The allegation is that CW1, a boy aged 14 years, was made to do household labour in the house of the accused and while that boy was doing the work, on 8.9.2006, at 9 am, the accused stamped the boy with his chappal worn foot. He also beat and fisted on the face of that boy. Further allegation is that when the boy expressed his willingness to go home, the accused wrongfully Crl. M.C. No: 3636 OF 2011 (D) 2 restrained the boy from moving out of the compound by locking the gate of his house. 3. It is contented by the petitioner that Annexure 1, F.I.R. Registered by the Police, does not make out any offence to attract section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is not a case to be tried by the Principal Sessions Judge. This contention has been strongly resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The allegations, mentioned earlier are seen in Annexure 1 final report filed by the Police. The wound certificate which is produced along with the final report also shows that it was the very same allegation made by the injured to the doctor. 5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution has not produced any document to show Crl. M.C. No: 3636 OF 2011 (D) 3 that the injured boy was below 18 years. The doctor has noted the age of the boy as 15 years. The difference is not a few months or even one year. A boy aged 14 or 15 years cannot be confused as a boy aged above 18 years. Anyway those are matters to be considered by the learned Sessions Judge during trial. 6. “Child rights” has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Central Act 4 of 2006 as: “(b) 'child rights' includes the children's rights adopted in the United Nations convention on the Rights of the Child on the 20th November, 1989 and ratified by the Government of India on the 11th December, 1992;” Offences involving 'child rights' has to be tried by the Children's Court constituted under section 25 of that Act. Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, of each district, has been notified as Children's Court to try the offence Crl. M.C. No: 3636 OF 2011 (D) 4 involving child rights. The contention that section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is not attracted, is found unacceptable since the victim of this case is a boy aged less than 18 years. The fact that such offence has to be tried by Principal Sessions Judge constituted or notified under Section 25 of Central Act 4/2006 cannot be disputed at all. This Court has already taken that view (vide common order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No:1481/2011 and Crl.M.C. No:2715/2011 dated 11.10.2011). 7. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that no committal proceedings were initiated in this case and that the accused were not furnished copies of the records as provided under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge will look into that aspect. If there was no proper committal, the learned Crl. M.C. No: 3636 OF 2011 (D) 5 Sessions Judge will send back the records to the jurisdictional Magistrate so as to enable that Magistrate to commit the case in accordance with law. Subject to the above this petition is dismissed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj