Holding

The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 mandates that the age of a person be determined as of the date he is brought before the competent authority, not the date of the offence.

Summary

Arnit Das was arrested for a murder under IPC 302 and claimed to be a juvenile, asserting a birth date of 18‑09‑1982. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered an enquiry under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and, after a medical board report, concluded that Das was above 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence, thus not a juvenile. The Sessions Court and the Patna High Court upheld this finding. The Supreme Court was asked to decide (i) whether the age for juvenile status should be measured by the date of the offence or by the date the person is brought before the competent authority, and (ii) whether the lower courts' age finding could be sustained. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice Act requires the age to be determined as of the date the person is brought before the competent authority, rendering the offence date irrelevant, and that the lower courts' finding, based on evidence, was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was not treated as a juvenile.

Issues considered

By reference to which date must the age of an accused be determined for the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – the date of commission of the offence or the date of appearance before the competent authority?
Whether the finding of the lower courts that the appellant was above the juvenile age threshold can be sustained.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 164
Constitution of Indias. 141, s. 20(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986s. 18, s. 20, s. 2(h), s. 3, s. 32, s. 8

Subjects

Juvenile Justice Actage determinationcompetent authorityjuvenile statusSection 32pre‑amble interpretationsub silentiocriminal lawmurderIPC 302

Judgment

ARNIT DAS A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR

MAY 9, 2000

[K.T. THOMAS AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B

Criminal Law :

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 :
c
Section 2(h) and 32-Juvenile-Age-Determination of~rucial date-
Held : . The data on which the accused is brought before the competent
authority is date with reference to which the age of the person has to be
determined-The date of commission of the offence is irrelevant in this regard.

Section 32-Juvenile-Age-Determination of-Relevant factors to be D
considered-On the basis of relevant record Magistrate concluded that the
accused was above 16 years and, therefore, not required to be tried by a
Juvenile Court-Such finding was upheld by Sessions Court and High Court-
Correctness of-Held: Supreme Court's interference not cal/.;dfor.

Constitution of India, 1950 :
E

Article 141-Ratio decidendi-Rule of sub silentio--A decision not
expressed on a conscious consideration of an issue is not the ratio decidendi
and cannot have binding effect.

Interpretation of Statutes: F
Internal Aids-Preamble-It is permissible to look into the Preamble
if the language is ambiguous so as to determine the legislative intent.
Doctrines:
G
Doctrine of sub silentio. Words and Phrases:

"Juvenile" and "neglected juvenile "-Meaning of -In the context of
S.2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

The appellant was arrested in connection with an offence under Section
69
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and was produced before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), who after recording his statement under Section
164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, remanded him to juvenile home.
The appellant claimed that he was a juvenile and, therefore, entitled to
protection under thE: Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

B The ACJM dir,ected an enquiry to be held under Section 32 of the Act.
The appellant 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 appellant, the ACJM concludes that the appellant
was above 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, was
C not required to be tried by a Juvenile Court This finding was upheld by the
Sessions Court in appeal and the High Court in revision. Hence this appeal

The following questions arose before this Court :-

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

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

E HELD: 1.1. The scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 contemplates
its applicability coming into play only when the person may appear or be
brought before the competent authority. A Police Officer or a Magistrate who
is not empowered to net 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
F authority at the earlier 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 the person
G 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.
[78-D; 79-8-C) .

1.2. 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
H suggest that the competent authority is required to record the finding by
ARNIT DAS v. ST ATE OF BIHAR 71
reference to an event in presenting before it, Le. by reference to the date when A
the person is brought before it and not by reference to a remote event Le. the
date on which the offence was.committed. (79-D-E)

2.1. The term 'juvenile justice' before the onset of delinquency may refer
to social justice; after the onset of deliquency, it refers to justice in the normal
juridical sense. The Juvenile Justice Act provides for justice after the onset B
of delinquency. The societal factors leading to the 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 the justice delivery
system is taken care of by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The C
view so taken finds support from the Preamble to the Act and tb<' statement
of objects and reasons. 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 D
juvenile having committed a delinquency is placed for being taken care of
post-delinquency. (81-A-D)

Treatise on the Juvenile Justice Act by Ved Kumari, Indian law Institute,
New Delhi, pp.4 and 5 and juvenile Justice Act by Asutosh Mookerjee,
published by S.C. Sarkar & Sons pp.20-21, referred to. E
2.2. 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 itto be under 16 years of age ifa boy under 18 years of age if
a girl on the date of being so brought or such appearance first before the F
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. (81-G-H; 82-A)

3.1. Generally speaking Santanu Mitra, Bhola Bhagat and Gopinath G
Ghosh cases are authorities for the propositions that:

(i) the technieality 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 orthe legislation, come in the way of the H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A benefit being extended Ito the accused appellant even if the plea
WH raised for the first time before this Court;

(ii) a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while

B
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 casej
and

(iii) the provisions of the Act are mandatory and while implementing
the provisions of the Act, those charged with responsibilities of
C implementation should show sensitivity and concern for a juvenile.
[82-F-H]

3.2. However, in none of these 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
D was a juvenile or not, was neither raised nor decided. [82-H; 83-AI

Santanu Mitrav. State ofWB., (199815 SCC 697; Bhola Bhagat v. State
of Bihar, [199718 SCC 720; Gopinath Ghosh v. State of WB., (19841 Supp.
SCC 228 and Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar, AIR (1989) Pat 217, held
E inapplicable.

Dilip Saha v. State of WB., AIR (1978) Cal 529, overruled.

3.3. A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reason and not
proceeding on conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a
F law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That
which has escap1~d 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 nlit
consciously determined. [83-B)

State of UP. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd, (1991) 4 SCC 138, relied
G on.
4.1. 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. The Preamble is a
key to unlock the legislative intent. If the words employed in an enactment
H may spell a doubt as to their meaning it would be useful to so interpret the
ARN IT DAS v. ST ATE OF BIHAR 73
enactment as to harmonise it with the object, which the Legislature had in its. A
view. (84-F-G)

Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd & East Indian Coal Co. Ltd v. Union of India
AIR (1961) SC 954 and Kunja Musaliar v. Venkatachalam Potti, AIR (1958)
SC 246, relied on.
B
4.2. The Legislative aims and objectives go to show that the 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 thatthe C
content of the Act is the justice aspect relating to juveniles. (84-G-H; 85-A)

5.1. However, the provisions of Chapter VI dealing with special offences
in respect of juvenile have not been dealt with in this judgment. Primafacie,
the view taken above would create no difficulty even in assigning a meaning D
to the term juvenile as occurring in Chapter VI (Sections 41 to 45) of the Act
because a juvenile covered by any orthese provisions is likely to fall within
the definition of neglected juvenile as defined in Section 2(i) who shall also
have to be dealt with by a Juvenile Board under Chapter ill of the Act and the
view taken above would hold the field there as well. But no opinion on the
scope of Chapter VI of the Act is expressed and that aspect is left to be taken E
care of in a suitable case. (85-8-C)

5.2. 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 presenCcontext
is concerned it is clear that the crucial date for determining the question F
whether a person is juvenile is the date when he is brought before the
competent authority. (85-D)

6. So far as the finding regarding the age of the appellant is concerned
it is based on an appreciation of evidence and arrived at after taking into G
consideration the material available on record and valid reasons having been
assigned for it. The finding arrived at by the ACJM has been maintained by
the Sessions Court in appeal and the High Court in revision. No case has
been made out for interfering therewith. (85-E-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 469 of H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2000 of the Patna High Court
in Cr!. R. No. 713of1999. ':

U.R. Lalit, N.R. Choudhary, Jai Prakash Pandey and Somnath Mukherjee
B for the Appellant.

Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solictor General, L.R. Singh, B.B. Singh and
Kumar Rajesh Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c 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 arreste<i 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
D 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 petitioner's claim was disputed on
behalf of the prosecution. The A.C.J.M. directed an enquiry to be held under
E 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 Sc:ssions Court in appeal and the High Court
F 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
G 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 appeUant has submitted
H that it is the date of the offence which is crucial for determining the age of
ARNIT DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 75
the person claiming to be juvenile while according to the learned Additional A
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 speaks, is "an Act to
provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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; F
(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;
(ill) to spell out the machinery and infrastructure required for the G
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; H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A (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
B formal system ofjuvenile justice and voluntary agencies engaged
in the welfare of negh:cted 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;
C (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 corresponding laws on the subject
D such as the Children Act, 1960 and other State enactments on the
subject.

The Bill seeks to achi•:ve the above objects."

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

xxx xxx xxx

(h) '1uvenile" means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen
years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years;"
F
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.
G 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
H juveniles. Provisions contained in Sections 18 to 26 provide for bail and
ARNIT DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 77
custody of juvenile accused of a bailable or non- bailable offence, the manner A
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 B
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. C
It is pertinent to note that neither the definition of juvenile rior 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.
D
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 ofage.-(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 E
evidence) is a juvenile, the competent authority shall make due enquiry
as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take 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 p
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."
G
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. H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 constitut(:d 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
C 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
D 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 unde:r this Act is of opinion that the person
brought before him under any of th(: provisions of this Act (otherwise then
for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile, he shall record such opinion
E 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-
F bailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears
or is brought bl:fore 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 believing that the release is likely to bring him
G 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
H 20, where a juvenile charged with an offence appears or is produced before
ARNIT DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 79

-- 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
A

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 B
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 C
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.
D
The use of the word 'is' at two places in sub-section ( l) 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. E
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 F
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 G
said United Nations Standard Minimum Rules, called Beijing Rules, adopted
by the General Assembly in I 985 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 H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C,R.

A · offenders impartially, without distinction of any kind, for example
as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions,
· national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

21. For purposes of these Rules, the following definitions shall be
applied )>y Member States in a manner which is compatible with
B 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
c 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,
D
a set of Jaws, rules and provisions specifically applicable to
juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted with the
functions of the administration ofjuvenile justice and designed:

(a) to meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders, while protecting
thdr basic rights;
E
(b) to meet the needs of society; and

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

xxx xxx xxx

F 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
G 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]

H The tenn 'juvenile justice' before the onset of delinquency may refer to
ARNIT DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 81
social justice; after the onset of delinquency, it refers to justice in its normal A
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 B
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 the Act
and the statement of objects and reasons. The preamble speaks for the Act C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 ate, therefore, clearly of the opinion
that the procedure prescribed by the provisions of the Act has to be adopted G
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 H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C attention to Santanu Mitra v. State of WB., [1998) 5 SCC 697, Bhola Bhagat
v. State ofBihar, [1997) 8 SCC 720 and Gopinath Ghosh v. State ofWB., [1984)
Supp. SCC 228 and to a number of othi:r 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
D 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 contesting parties
before the Court have made their submissions by assuming that the date of
E the offence was the relevant date for determining the age of the juvenile.
Accordingly this Court, having examinc:d 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
F 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
G 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
H or the date of production of the person before the competent authority), the
ARNIT DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 83

Court shall determine whether the person was a juvenile o~ not, was neither A
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 B
sub-silentio,. in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not
consciously determined. (See State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd.,
[1991] 4 sec 138, para41.

Full Bench decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Dilip Saha v. State C
of West Bengal, AIR (1978) Calcutta 529 and Full Bench decision in Krishna
Bhagwan v. 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 D
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. E
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 F
20 (I) of the Constitution which prohibits any person on conviction for any
offence being subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
The High Court has overlooked that Article 20 (I) of the Constitution would
be attracted only if the applicability of the Act was determined by reference G
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 H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A not arise at all because before the commencement of the trial there would be
some point of time when the accus(:d shall have to be brought before the
competent autho:rity and that date would be determinative of the fact whether
the accused was a juvenile or not. As to Krishna Bhagwan 's case decided
by Patna High Court suffice it to observe that the opening part of the
B 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
C 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 as!;umption and is certainly not a point
deliberated upon before the High Court.

D All this exercise would have bee:n 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
E 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
(Mis. Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. & Mis. East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. v. 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
F of understanding of it, said this Court in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. 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
G 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
H the Act too suggests that the content of the Act is the justice aspect relating
ARNIT DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR (R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 85
to juveniles. A
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 B
fall within the definition of neglected juvenile as defined in clause (I) 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 C
in the present context we need not vex our mind on that aspect. Section 2
which defines 'juvenile' and 'neglected juvenile' itself beg'ris 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 D
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 E
maintained by the Sessions Court in appeal and the High Court in revision.
We fmd no case having been made out for interfering therewith.

For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed. F