http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: ARNIT DAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/2000

BENCH: K.T.Thomas, R.C.Lahoti

JUDGMENT:

     R.C.  Lahoti, J.

     On  5.9.1998,  Crime  No.  574/98 under  Section  302, I.P.C.  was registered at P.S.  Kadamkuan, Patna.  According to  the  FIR,  one Abhishek was shot dead on that  day.   On 13.9.1998 the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said  offence.   On  14.9.1998 the petitioner  was  produced before  the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna  who after  recording his statement under Section 164 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure remanded him to Juvenile home, Patna. The  petitioner  claimed to have been born on 18.9.1982  and therefore a juvenile, entitled to protection of The Juvenile Justice  Act, 1986, (hereinafter The Act for short).   The petitioners   claim   was  disputed  on   behalf   of   the prosecution.   The A.C.J.M.  directed an enquiry to be  held under Section 32 of the Act.  The petitioner was referred to examination by a Medical Board.  On receipt of the report of the  Medical  Board and on receiving such other evidence  as was  adduced  on  behalf  of the  petitioner,  the  A.C.J.M. concluded  that the petitioner was above 16 years of age  on the date of the occurrence and therefore was not required to be  tried by a Juvenile Court.  The finding has been  upheld by  the  Sessions  Court  in appeal and the  High  Court  in revision.   The  petitioner has filed this petition  seeking leave to appeal.

     Leave granted.

     Two questions have arisen for consideration.  Firstly, by  reference  to  which date the age of the  petitioner  is required  to  be determined for finding out whether he is  a juvenile  or not.  Secondly, whether the finding as to  age, as arrived at by the Courts below and maintained by the High Court, can be sustained.

     Shri  U.R.  Lalit, the learned senior counsel for  the appellant  has submitted that it is the date of the  offence which  is  crucial  for determining the age  of  the  person claiming  to  be  juvenile while according  to  the  learned Additional  Solicitor  General it is the date on  which  the person   is  brought  before   the  competent  authority  by reference  to which the age of the person is required to  be determined so as to find whether he is a juvenile or not.

     The  Juvenile  Justice  Act,  1986,  as  its  preamble

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

speaks,  is  an  Act to provide for the  care,  protection, treatment,  development  and rehabilitation of neglected  or delinquent  juvenile  and  for the adjudication  of  certain matters   relating  to,  and   disposition  of,   delinquent juveniles.   The statement of objects and reasons, it  will be  useful  to reproduce (with emphasis supplied by  us)  as under :-

     A review of the working of the existing Children Acts would indicate that much greater attention is required to be given  to children who may be found in situations of  social maladjustment,  delinquency or neglect.  The justice  system as available for adults is not considered suitable for being applied  to juveniles.  It is also necessary that a  uniform juvenile  justice system should be available throughout  the country  which  should make adequate provision  for  dealing with  all  aspects  in  the changing  social,  cultural  and economic  situation in the country.  There is also need  for larger  involvement of informal systems and community  based welfare  agencies  in  the   care,  protection,   treatment, development and rehabilitation of such juveniles.

     2.   In this context, the proposed legislation aims at achieving the following objectives :-

     (i) to lay down a uniform legal framework for juvenile justice  in the country so as to ensure that no child  under any circumstances is lodged in jail or police lock-up.  This is being ensured by establishing Juvenile Welfare Boards and Juvenile Courts;

     (ii) to provide for a specialised approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency in its full range  in keeping with the developmental needs of the  child found in any situation of social maladjustment;

     (iii)  to  spell out the machinery and  infrastructure required  for  the care, protection, treatment,  development and  rehabilitation of various categories of children coming within  the purview of the juvenile justice system.  This is proposed  to be achieved by establishing observation  homes, juvenile homes for neglected juveniles and special homes for delinquent juveniles;

     (iv)   to  establish  norms   and  standards  for  the administration of juvenile justice in terms of investigation and  prosecution,  adjudication and disposition,  and  care, treatment and rehabilitation;

     (v)  to develop appropriate linkages and co-ordination between  the formal system of juvenile justice and voluntary agencies  engaged  in the welfare of neglected  or  socially maladjusted children and to specifically define the areas of their responsibilities and roles;

     (vi)  to  constitute special offences in  relation  to juveniles and provide for punishments therefor;

     (vii)  to bring the operation of the juvenile  justice system  in the country in conformity with the United Nations Standard  Minimum  Rule for the Administration  of  Juvenile Justice.

     3.   As  its  various provisions come  into  force  in different  parts  of  the  country they  would  replace  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

corresponding  laws on the subject such as the Children Act, 1960 and other State enactments on the subject.

     The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.

     Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act defines juvenile as under  :- 2.  Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

     xxx xxx xxx xxx

     (h)  juvenile  means a boy who has not attained  the age  of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years;

     Section 3 provides where an enquiry has been initiated against  a juvenile and during the course of such enquiry  a juvenile  ceases to be such, then, notwithstanding  anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,  the enquiry may be continued and orders may be  made in  respect of such persons as if such person had  continued to be a juvenile.  Chapter II of the Act speaks of competent authorities  and institutions for juveniles such as Juvenile Welfare  Boards,  Juvenile Courts, Juvenile  homes,  Special homes,  Observation  homes   and  After-care  organisations. Chapter  III makes provision for neglected juveniles wherein is   also   included  Section  17   making   provision   for uncontrollable  juveniles.  Chapter IV deals with delinquent juveniles.   Provisions  contained  in  Sections  18  to  26 provide  for  bail  and  custody of juvenile  accused  of  a bailable  or  non- bailable offence, the manner  of  dealing with  them  and the orders that may be passed  regarding  or against  delinquent  juveniles.  Proceedings  under  Chapter VIII  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure are  not  competent against  juvenile.   A juvenile and a person not a  juvenile cannot  be  jointly tried.  No disqualification attaches  to conviction  of  a  juvenile for any offence under  any  law. Then there are special provisions contained in Section 26 as to  proceedings in respect of juveniles pending in any Court on  the  date  of coming into force of the Act.   Chapter  V (Sections  27  to  40)  lay   down  procedure  of  competent authorities   generally  under  the   Act  and  appeals  and revisions  from  orders  of such  authorities.   Chapter  VI (Sections 41 to 45) provides for special offences in respect of  juveniles.   Chapter  VII (Sections 46 to  63)  contains miscellaneous provisions.

     It is pertinent to note that neither the definition of juvenile  nor  any  other  provision contained  in  the  Act specifically provides the date by reference to which the age of  a  boy or a girl has to be determined so as to find  out whether he or she is a juvenile or not.

     The  learned  Additional Solicitor  General  submitted that  the  answer  is to be found in Section 32 of  the  Act which reads as under :-

     32.   Presumption  and determination of age.     (1) Where  it  appears  to a competent authority that  a  person brought  before  it under any of the provisions of this  Act (otherwise  than  for the purpose of giving evidence)  is  a juvenile,  the competent authority shall make due enquiry as to  the  age of that person and for that purpose shall  take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

such evidence as may be necessary and shall record a finding whether  the person is a juvenile or not, stating his age as nearly as may be.

     (2)  No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to  have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof  that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a  juvenile, and the age recorded by the competent authority to  be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the  purpose  of this Act, be deemed to be the true  age  of that person.

     It  is  submitted by the learned Additional  Solicitor General that order of the competent authority has been given a  finality subject to decision in appeal and/or revision as regards  the  age  of that person and  the  jurisdiction  to record  that  finding commences when the person  is  brought before  it.  It is this expression which provides the  vital clue  to  the  date by reference to which the age is  to  be determined.

     There  are several provisions in the Act which provide for  first  appearance  of the person before  the  competent authority.   Competent Authority has been defined in  Clause (d)  of  Section  2  to   mean,  in  relation  to  neglected juveniles,  a  Juvenile  Welfare   Board  constituted  under Section  4  of  the  Act  and,  in  relation  to  delinquent juveniles,  Juvenile  Court  and  where  no  such  Board  or Juvenile  Court  has  been constituted, includes  any  Court empowered under sub-section (2) of Section 7 to exercise the powers  conferred  on  a Board or a Juvenile  Court.   Under sub-section  (2)  of Section 7, where no Board  or  Juvenile Court  has  been  constituted  for   any  area,  the  powers conferred on the Board or the Juvenile Court by or under the Act  shall  be  exercised  in  that  area  by  the  District Magistrate   or  the  Sub-Divisional   Magistrate   or   any Metropolitan  Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,  as  the  case may be.  The powers conferred  on  the Board  or  Juvenile Court may also be exercised by the  High Court  and the Court of Sessions, when the proceeding  comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise.

     The  scheme of the Act contemplates its  applicability coming  into  play  only when the person may  appear  or  be brought  before  the competent authority.  Under Section  8, when  any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of the  Board  or Juvenile Court under this Act is  of  opinion that  the  person  brought  before  him  under  any  of  the provisions  of  this Act (otherwise then for the purpose  of giving evidence) is a juvenile, he shall record such opinion and forward the juvenile and the record of the proceeding to the  competent  authority  having   jurisdiction  over   the proceeding.  The competent authority to which the proceeding is  so  forwarded shall hold the enquiry as if the  juvenile had originally been brought before it.

     Under  Section  18,  when  any  person  accused  of  a bailable  or non-bailable offence and apparently a  juvenile is  arrested  or detained or appears or is brought before  a Juvenile  Court, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without  surety unless there appears reasonable grounds  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

believing  that  the  release  is likely  to  bring  him  in association  with any known criminal or expose him to  moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. In  the  latter  case,  the  person has to  be  kept  in  an observation  home  or  a  place of safety until  he  can  be brought  before a Juvenile Court.  The Juvenile Court if not releasing  the person on bail must not commit him to  prison but  send  him to an observation home or a place  of  safety during  the  pendency  of  the enquiry  before  him.   Under Section 20, where a juvenile charged with an offence appears or  is produced before a Juvenile Court, the Juvenile  Court shall  hold an enquiry in accordance with the provisions  of Section  39.  A reading of all these provisions referred  to herein  above makes it very clear that an enquiry as to  the age  of the juvenile has to be made only when he is  brought or appears before the competent authority.  A Police Officer or a Magistrate who is not empowered to act or cannot act as a  competent authority has to merely form an opinion  guided by  the  apparent  age  of the person and in  the  event  of forming  an opinion that he is a juvenile, he has to forward him  to  the competent authority at the earliest subject  to arrangements for keeping in custody and safety of the person having  been  made  for  the duration of  time  elapsing  in between.   The  competent  authority shall proceed  to  hold enquiry  as  to the age of that person for  determining  the same  by  reference  to the date of the  appearance  of  the person before it or by reference to the date when person was brought  before  it under any of the provisions of the  Act. It  is irrelevant what was the age of the person on the date of  commission  of  the offence.  Any  other  interpretation would  not fit in the scheme and phraseology employed by the Parliament in drafting the Act.

     The  use of the word is at two places in sub-section (1)  of  Section 32 of the Act read in conjunction  with  a person  brought before it also suggests that the  competent authority  is required to record the finding by reference to an  event  in presenti before it, i.e.  by reference to  the date  when  the  person  is brought before  it  and  not  by reference  to  a  remote event i.e.  the date on  which  the offence was committed.

     Prior  to  the enactment of the Juvenile Justice  Act, 1986  there were several laws prevailing in different States and the need for a uniform legislation for juveniles for the whole of India was expressed in various forums including the Parliament.   Such uniform legislation was not being enacted on  the ground that the subject matter of such a legislation fell  in  the  State  List of the  Constitution.   The  U.N. Standard  Minimum  Rules for the administration of  juvenile justice  enabled the Parliament exercising its powers  under Article  253  of the Constitution read with entry 14 of  the Union  List to make any law for the whole of India to fulfil international  obligations  (see  Treatise on  the  Juvenile Justice  Act by Ved Kumari, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, p.5).   The  said  United Nations  Standard  Minimum  Rules, called  Beijing  Rules, adopted by the General  Assembly  in 1985 vide Chapter 2 & 5 of Part-I provide as under:-

     2.  Scope of the Rules and definitions used

     2.1  The  following  Standard Minimum Rules  shall  be applied   to   juvenile   offenders   impartially,   without distinction  of  any kind, for example as to  race,  colour, sex,  language,  religion,  political   or  other  opinions,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

     2.2  For  purposes  of   these  Rules,  the  following definitions  shall  be applied by Member States in a  manner which  is compatible with their respective legal systems and concepts:

     (a)  A juvenile is a child or young person who,  under the  respective  legal  systems, may be dealt  with  for  an offence in a manner which is different from an adult.

     (b) An offence is any behaviour (act or omission) that is punishable by law under the respective legal systems;

     (c) A juvenile offender is a child or young person who is  alleged to have committed or who has been found to  have committed an offence.

     2.3  Efforts  shall  be  made to  establish,  in  each national  jurisdiction, a set of laws, rules and  provisions specifically   applicable   to    juvenile   offenders   and institutions  and bodies entrusted with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed :

     (a)  to meet the varying needs of juvenile  offenders, while protecting their basic rights;

     (b) to meet the needs of society;  and

     (c)  to  implement the following rules thoroughly  and fairly.

     xxx xxx xxx xxx

     xxx xxx xxx xxx

     5.  Aims of juvenile justice

     5.1  The  juvenile justice system shall emphasize  the well-being  of  the  juvenile  and  shall  ensure  that  any reaction to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportion to the circumstances of both the offenders and the offence.

     [Source    Juvenile Justice Act by Asutosh  Mookerjee published by S.C.  Sarkar & Sons, pp.  20-21]

     The  term  juvenile  justice  before  the  onset  of delinquency may refer to social justice;  after the onset of delinquency,  it  refers to justice in its normal  juridical sense.   (See   Juvenile Justice :  Before and  after  the onset  of  delinquency,  working   paper  prepared  by  the Secretariat  for  6th  U.N.  Congress on the  Prevention  of Crime  and  the Treatment of Offenders, quoted at page 4  of The  Treatise, Ved Kumari, ibid).  The Juvenile Justice  Act provides  for  justice after the onset of delinquency.   The societal  factors  leading to birth of delinquency  and  the preventive  measures which would check juvenile  delinquency legitimately  fall within the scope of social justice.  Once a  boy  or  a  girl  has assumed  delinquency,  his  or  her treatment  and trial at the hands of justice delivery system is  taken care of by the provisions of the Juvenile  Justice Act.   The view so taken finds support from the preamble  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

the  Act  and  the statement of objects  and  reasons.   The preamble speaks for the Act making provisions for the things post-  delinquency.   Several  expressions employed  in  the statement  of objects and reasons vocally support this view. The  Act  aims  at laying down a  uniform  juvenile  justice system  in  the country avoiding lodging in jail  or  police lock-up   of  child;   and   providing  for  prevention  and treatment  of  juvenile delinquency, for  care,  protection, etc.   post-  juvenility.  In short the field sought  to  be covered  by the Act is not the one which had led to juvenile delinquency  but the field when juvenile having committed  a delinquency  is  placed  for  being   taken  care  of  post- delinquency.

     During  the  course  of  hearing, the  Court  posed  a question to Shri U.R.  Lalit, the learned senior counsel for the appellant  What happens if a boy or a girl of just less than  16  or  18 years of age commits an  offence  and  then leaves the country or for any reasons neither appears nor is brought  before  the  competent authority until  he  or  she attains  the  age of say 50 years ?  If  the  interpretation suggested  by  the learned senior counsel for the  appellant were  to be accepted, he shall have to be sent to a juvenile home, special home or an observation home or entrusted to an after  care  organisation where there would all be boys  and girls  of  less  than 16 or 18 years of age.   Would  he  be required  to  be  dealt  by a Juvenile Welfare  Board  or  a Juvenile  Court ?  The learned senior counsel, with all  the wits  at his command, had no answer till the end and had  to give  up  ultimately.   We are, therefore,  clearly  of  the opinion  that the procedure prescribed by the provisions  of the  Act has to be adopted only when the competent authority finds the person brought before it or appearing before it is found  to  be  under 16 years of age if a boy and  under  18 years  of  age if a girl on the date of being so brought  or such  appearance first before the competent authority.   The date  of the commission of offence is irrelevant for finding out  whether the person is a juvenile within the meaning  of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act.  If that would have been the  intendment of the Parliament, nothing had prevented  it from saying so specifically.

     Section  3  of  the Act also provides a  clue  to  the legislative  intent.   It provides for an enquiry  initiated against the juvenile being continued and orders made thereon even  if such person had ceased to be a juvenile during  the course  of  such enquiry.  There would have been no need  of enacting  Section  3 if only the age of the  juvenile  would have  been  determinable  by reference to the  date  of  the offence.

     Shri  U.R.  Lalit, the learned senior counsel for  the appellant  invited our attention to Santanu Mitra v.   State of  W.B.  1998 (5) SCC 697, Bhola Bhagat v.  State of  Bihar 1997  (8) SCC 720 and Gopinath Ghosh v.  State of W.B.  1984 Supp.   SCC 228 and to a number of other decisions which  we do not propose to catalogue separately for most of them have been referred to in paras 14 and 15 of the decision in Bhola Bhagat  (Supra).  What has been emphasized by Shri Lalit  is that  in  all these cases the question whether  the  person, arrayed  as  accused/appellant  before   the  Court,  was  a juvenile or not was decided by taking into consideration the age of the accused on the date of the occurrence or the date of the commission of the offence.  We have carefully pursued all these decisions.  In all these cases the counsel for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

contesting   parties  before  the   Court  have  made  their submissions by assuming that the date of the offence was the relevant  date  for  determining the age  of  the  juvenile. Accordingly  this  Court, having examined the facts of  each case, recorded a finding as to the age of the accused on the date  of the occurrence of the offence.  Generally  speaking these  cases  are authorities for the propositions that  (i) the  technicality  of  the accused having  not  claimed  the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act at the earliest  opportunity  or  before any of  the  Courts  below should   not,  keeping  in  view   the  intendment  of   the legislation,  come in the way of the benefit being  extended to the accused appellant even if the plea was raised for the first  time  before  this   Court;   (ii)  a  hypertechnical approach  should  not  be  adopted  while  appreciating  the evidence  adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile and if two views may be possible on  the  same evidence, the Court should lean in  favour  of holding  the accused to be a juvenile in border line  cases; and  (iii) the provisions of the Act are mandatory and while implementing  the provisions of the Act, those charged  with responsibilities  of implementation should show  sensitivity and  concern for a juvenile.  However, in none of the  cases the specific issue  by reference to which date (the date of the  offence or the date of production of the person  before the  competent authority), the Court shall determine whether the  person  was a juvenile or not, was neither  raised  nor decided.

     A  decision not expressed, not accompanied by  reasons and  not  proceeding on conscious consideration of an  issue cannot  be  deemed  to be a law declared to have  a  binding effect  as  is contemplated by Article 141.  That which  has escaped in the judgment is not ratio decidendi.  This is the rule  of  sub-silentio,  in  the   technical  sense  when  a particular  point  of  law was not  consciously  determined. (See  State of U.P.  Vs.  Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd.   1991 (4) SCC 138, para 41).

     Full  Bench decision of the High Court of Calcutta  in Dilip  Saha Vs.  State of West Bengal  AIR1978 Calcutta 529 and  Full  Bench decision in Krishna Bhagwan Vs.   State  of Bihar    AIR 1989 Patna 217 were strongly relied on by  the learned  senior  counsel,  Shri Lalit  submitting  that  the question  specifically arising for consideration before this Court was also before the two High Courts.  We have examined the  two decisions.  In Dilip Saha (supra) the Calcutta High Court,  interpreting the provisions of WB children Act, 1959 which  is a pari materia enactment, has taken the view  that the  age of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence is the relevant age for attracting the provisions of the  WB  Children Act, 1959 and not his age at the  time  of trial.   Vide paras 22 to 24 the Full Bench has assigned two reasons  for taking the view which it has done which in  our opinion are both erroneous.  One reason is that according to Section  24 of that Act a child cannot be sentenced to death or  ordinarily  to imprisonment then denying the benefit  of the provisions of the Act to a person who was a child on the date  of the offence but had ceased to be so on the date  of commencement  of  the  inquiry or trial, may result  in  the child  being  sentenced  to death or imprisonment  for  life consequent  upon  his  being  held  guilty  which  would  be violative  of  Article  20  (1) of  the  Constitution  which prohibits  any  person on conviction for any  offence  being subjected  to  a penalty greater than that which might  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

been  inflicted  under the law in force at the time  of  the commission  of  the offence.  The High Court has  overlooked that  Article 20 (1) of the Constitution would be  attracted only  if  the  applicability of the Act  was  determined  by reference  to  the  date  of  the  offence  but  if  it  was determined  by reference to the date of the commencement  of the  inquiry  or trial then Article 20 (1) would not  apply. The  second  reason assigned by the High Court is  that  the Investigating  Officer  may  by delaying  investigation  and putting up of the accused for trial deny the accused benefit of  the provisions of the Act and thereby defeat the  object and  purpose  of  the Act.  Suffice it to say that  such  an occasion  would  not  arise  at   all  because  before   the commencement  of the trial there would be some point of time when  the  accused  shall  have to  be  brought  before  the competent  authority and that date would be determinative of the  fact whether the accused was a juvenile or not.  As  to Krishna  Bhagwans case decided by Patna High Court  suffice it  to observe that the opening part of the judgment  itself indicates  that  the  question  posed before us  was  not  a question  arising before the High Court.  The two  questions considered  and  answered by the High Court were  different. The  High Court was seized of the issues as to what would be the impact of the event of the child ceasing to be so before the conclusion of the trial and the effect of the plea under the  Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 having not been taken before the  trial court and the trial having proceeded oblivious of the  provisions of the Act.  During the course of discussion the Full Bench has observed that the juvenile is one who was below  a  certain age on the date of the commission  of  the offence  but the observation is also based on an  assumption and  is  certainly not a point deliberated upon  before  the High Court.

     All  this exercise would have been avoided if only the Legislature  would have taken care not to leave an ambiguity in  the  definition  of  juvenile  and  would  have  clearly specified  the  point of time by reference to which the  age was  to  be  determined to find a person  a  juvenile.   The ambiguity  can be resolved by taking into consideration  the Preamble  and  the  Statement of Objects and  Reasons.   The Preamble  suggests  what the Act was intended to deal  with. If the language used by Parliament is ambiguous the Court is permitted  to  look  into the preamble  for  construing  the provisions  of an Act (M/s.  Burrakur Coal Co.  Ltd.  & M/s. East  Indian  Coal  Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  The Union of  India  and others,  AIR 1961 SC 954).  A preamble of a statute has been said  to be a good means of finding out its meaning and,  as it  were, the key of understanding of it, said this Court in A.   Thangal Kunju Musaliar Vs.  M.  Venkatachalam Potti AIR 1958  SC  246.   The  Preamble  is  a  key  to  un-lock  the legislative  intent.  If the words employed in an  enactment may  spell a doubt as to their meaning it would be useful to so  interpret  the  enactment as to harmonise  it  with  the object  which  the  Legislature  had   in  its  view.    The Legislative  aims and objectives set out in the earlier part of  this judgment go to show that this Legislation has  been made  for taking care of the care and custody of a  juvenile during  investigation, inquiry and trial, i.e., from a point of   time  when  the  juvenile  is  available  to  the   law administration  and  justice delivery system;  it  does  not make  any  provision for a person involved in an offence  by reference  to  the date of its commission by him.  The  long title of the Act too suggests that the content of the Act is the justice aspect relating to juveniles.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

     We  make  it  clear that we have not  dealt  with  the provisions  of  Chapter VI dealing with special offences  in respect  of  juveniles.  Prima facie, we feel that the  view which  we  have  taken would create no  difficulty  even  in assigning  meaning  to  the term juvenile  as  occurring  in Chapter  VI(Sections 41 to 45) of the Act because a juvenile covered  by any of these provisions is likely to fall within the  definition  of neglected juvenile as defined in  clause (l)  of Section 2 who shall also have to be dealt with by  a Juvenile  Board  under Chapter III of the Act and  the  view taken by us would hold the field there as well.  However, we express no opinion on the scope of Chapter VI of the Act and leave  that  aspect to be taken care of in a suitable  case. At  any rate in the present context we need not vex our mind on  that  aspect.   Section 2 which defines  juvenile  and neglected  juvenile itself begins by saying that the words defined  therein would have the assigned meaning unless the context  otherwise requires.  So far as the present context is  concerned we are clear in our mind that the crucial date for determining the question whether a person is juvenile is the date when he is brought before the competent authority.

     So  far  as  the  finding regarding  the  age  of  the appellant  is  concerned  it  is based  on  appreciation  of evidence  and arrived at after taking into consideration  of the  material  available on record and valid reasons  having been assigned for it.  The finding arrived at by the learned A.C.J.M.   has  been  maintained by the  Sessions  Court  in appeal  and  the  High Court in revision.  We find  no  case having been made out for interfering therewith.

     For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.