http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ABDUL MANNAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  905            1996 SCC  (1) 665  1995 SCALE  (7)259

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This is  an appeal  against the order dated January 11, 1989 passed  by the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 31  of 1989. In Sessions Case No.63A of 1981 on the file of the  Additional Sessions  Judge, 11 persons including the appellants are facing trial.      The appellants herein were charged for various offences including the  offence of  murder punishable  under  Section 302, Indian  Penal Code.  Now it transpires that on the date of the commission of the offence these appellants were under the age  of 17  and 18 years. Since they were children under the provisions  of the  West Bengal  Children Act, 1959 [for short, "the  Act"], they  were required  to be  tried by the Juveniles Court  but no  such court  had  been  constituted. Subsequently, pending  proceedings  Juvenile  Justices  Act, 1986 has  come into  force and  the Act stood repealed. Even under the  Act, trial  of the juvenile offenders requires to be conducted by the Juveniles Court. Since no court has been constituted  even   under  the  Central  Act  the  necessary consequences would be that the Sessions Judge had to conduct the trial.      Contention was  raised in  the courts  below  that  the Additional Sessions  Judge is not a Sessions Judge and that, therefore,  he   could  not  proceed  with  the  trial.  The contention was  rejected and  thus this  appeal  by  special leave against  the impugned  order dated  January 11,  1989. Section 9  [1] of  the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Act 21 of  1974] [for  short,  "the  Code"]  enjoins  the  State Governments to  establish  a  Court  of  Session  for  every sessions division.  It is  made clear  by sub-section [3] of Section 9 which provides that Additional Sessions Judges may be appointed by the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of  Session. Singular  includes plural. Sessions Judge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

would include  Additional Sessions  Judge  under  the  Code. Therefore, he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge  to try  the offences  enumerated  under  the Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, is competent to proceed  with the  trial of  the juvenile offenders. Even though at  the relevant  time the appellants were juveniles, by passage  of time  they no  longer remained to be juvenile offenders. They are now in mid thirties.      The object of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform and rehabilitate the  juvenile offenders  as useful  citizens in the society. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of  the Central  Act was denied to them due to their own  act   of  keeping  the  trial  pending  by  protracting litigation kept  the case pending trial and in the meanwhile the appellants had crossed the age of the juvenile offenders and became  adults. We  do not think it is a proper case for our interference  as no  useful purpose  under  Central  Act would serve.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed.