Kuna Alias Pradeep Kumar Jena Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the position of law, i am satisfied that this is a fit case for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail of rs, 15.000/-.with two sureties each for the like amount of whom one will be his father to the satisfaction of the c......the prosecution in the case is that when the deceased and the petitioner who were classmates were playing cards, there ensued a quarrel in course of which the deceased slapped the petitioner and in retaliation the petitioner gave him a blow on his belly with a knife which resulted in his death. on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the position of law, i am satisfied that this is a fit case for releasing the petitioner on bail.5. accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail of rs, 15.000/-. with two sureties each for the like amount of whom one will be his father to the satisfaction of the c.j.m., keonjhar subject to the further conditions that he shall personally appear in court as and when required and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court.6. the criminal misc. case is disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:

ORDER

D.P. Mohaptra, J.

1. Heard Shri D. P. Dhal for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner Kuna alias Pradeep Kumar Jena who, as stated in the bail petition and reiterated by Shri Dhal, is aged 15 years two months and seven days has been charge-sheeted Under Section 302, IPC in G. R. Case No. 252/93 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar. The specific question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail Under Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, (for short, 'the Act'). For answering this question, it is necessary 10 consider whether the petitioner can be said to be a juvenile as defined Under Section 2(h) of the Act. The term 'juvenile' is defined to mean a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. In the present case, as noted earlier, the petitioner had completed 15 years but not completed 16 years by the date of the alleged occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the question took the view that since he had completed 15 years, he had attained the age of 1 6 years and therefore was not a 'juvenile' as defined in the Act. On the said finding he rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail.

3. Shri Dhal joined issue on the aforementioned point. He submitted that a fair and reasonable interpretation of the term 'juvenile' keeping in mind the intent and purpose of the Act would be to hold that until a boy completes. 16 years of age he continues to be a juvenile as defined in the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of (Aher Malda v. State of Gujarat and Ors.) reported in (1972) 13 Gujarat Law Reporter 789 in which the Court considering a pari materia provision in the Saurashtra Children Act, 1954 construed the expression 'attained to mean completed. It was hold that the expression 'attained the age of eighteen years', used in Section 4(d) of the Saurashtra Children Act, 1954 means 'completed the age of eighteen years'. Reliance was placed on the decision of Chancery Division of the High Court of England In re Shurey Savory v. Shurey, 1918 (1) Chancery Division 263. A similar view was taken by the Mysore High Court in the case of G. Vatsala Rani v. Selection Committee reported in AIR 1967 Mysore 135 in which a similar provision in Majority Act, 1875 was construed. It was held that the specified age in law has to be computed as having been attained or completed on the day preceeding the anniversary of the birth day, that is. the day preceeding the day of calendar corresponding to the day of birth of the person.

4. Considering the views taken in the aforementioned decisions in the light of the provisions in the Act and the intent and purpose of the Act, I am inclined to take the view that 'attained' means 'completed'. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge was not right in holding that the petitioner who concededly had not completed 16 years was not entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Act.

I have also considered the case on its merit. The allegation made by the prosecution in the case is that when the deceased and the petitioner who were classmates were playing cards, there ensued a quarrel in course of which the deceased slapped the petitioner and in retaliation the petitioner gave him a blow on his belly with a knife which resulted in his death. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the position of law, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for releasing the petitioner on bail.

5. Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail of Rs, 15.000/-. with two sureties each for the like amount of whom one will be his father to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Keonjhar subject to the further conditions that he shall personally appear in Court as and when required and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court.

6. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly.