Holding

Section 20 of the 2000 Act applies only when the accused was below 18 years of age on 1‑April‑2001 and the proceedings were pending; otherwise the 1986 Act governs.

Summary

An FIR was lodged for murder and related offences committed on 17‑11‑1999. The accused, aged 17 years and 8 months at the time, applied to be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The 1986 Juvenile Justice Act, then in force, defined a male juvenile as under 16, so his application was initially dismissed. The Sessions Judge later invoked Section 20 of the 2000 Act and extended juvenile protection, a decision upheld by the trial court but reversed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 20 could apply retrospectively to a pending case where the accused had turned 18 before the appointed date of 1‑April‑2001. It held that the 2000 Act applies only if the accused was below 18 on that date and the proceedings were pending; since the accused had already turned 18, the 2000 Act does not apply and the case proceeds under the 1986 Act. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 can be applied retrospectively to a case pending under the 1986 Act.
Whether a person above 16 years at the time of the offence but below 18 on 1‑April‑2001 qualifies as a juvenile under the 2000 Act.
Whether the legal fiction created by Section 20 can override the age criteria of the 1986 Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 35
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 302, s. 34, s. 364
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000s. 1(3), s. 20, s. 64

Subjects

juvenile justicelegal fictionretrospective applicationSection 20age limitcriminal proceduremurderIPC

Judgment

BIJENDER SINGH ·A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

MARCH 28, 2005

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000-Juvenile
Justice Act, I 986-Juvenile-Male juvenile and female juvenile-Distinction
between, on the basis of age obliterated under the 2000 Act-Separate age C
limits of l 6 years for male juveniles and I 8 years for female juveniles as in
the repealed l 986 Act not maintained in the 2000 Act-Age limit is l 8 years
for both male and female juveniles.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000-Sections
20 & 1(3)-Juvenile Justice Act, 1986-Applicabi/ity of the 2000 Act to cases D
pending under the repealed 1986 Act-Held: Provisions of the 2000 Act
would be applicable to cases initiated and pending trial under the 1986 Act
provided the accused had not completed 18 years of age as on 1-4-2001, the
appointed day from which the 2000 Act came into force repealing the 1986
Act-Effect of legal fiction created in S. 20 of the 200n Act-Explained
E
FIR was lodged alleging commission of offences under Sections 302,
364, 201 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC. Charges were framed,
whereafter respondent No. 2-accused filed application before the Judicial
Magistrate, praying that he should be considered to be a juvenile under
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Since F
on the date of commission of offence, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was
in force and according to its provisfon the accused was not juvenile being
above sixteen years of age, the application was dismissed. However, the
Sessions Judge reversed the ord~r and extended benefit of the 2000 Act
to the accused. Complainant filed revision application before the High
Court which was rejected. G
The only point involved in tlfe present appeal is whether respondent
No. 2, who was admittedly more than 16 years of age on 17-11-1999 when
he purportedly committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 364,
201 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC, would be given the benefits of
1131 H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A the 2000 Act and would not be governed by the 1986 Act.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a juvenile means a
male juvenile who has not attained the age of 16 years, and a female
B juvenile who has not attained the age of 18 years. In the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the distin~tion between male
and female juveniles on the basis of age has not been maintained. The age
limit is 18 years for both male and female. [l 135-E)

2.1. In terms of the 1986 Act, a person who was not juvenile could
C be tried in any court. Section 20 of 2000 Act takes care of such a situation
·stating that despite the same the trial shall continue in that court as if that
Act has not been passed and in the event, he is found to be guilty of
commission of an offence, a finding to that effect shall be recorded in the
judgment of conviction, if any, but instead of passing any sentence in
D relation to the juvenile, he would be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice
Board which shall pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the
Act as if it has been satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed the
offence. A legal fiction has, thus, been created in the said provision. A legal
fiction as is well-known must be given its full effect although it has its
limitations. [1135-G-H; 1136-AJ
E
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors., JT
(2002) 10 SC 55; ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, JT
(2004) 6 SC 456 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.,
JT (2004) 1 SC 289, relied on.

F 2.2. In interpreting a provision creating a legal fiction, the Court has
to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created. After ascertaining the
purpose the Court has to assume all those facts and consequences which
are incidental or inevitable corollaries for giving effect to the fiction. But
in so construing the. fiction it is not to be extended beyond the purpose
G for which it is created, or beyond the language of the provision by which
it is created. (1136-C-D)

State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Ors., [2000) 2 SCC 699,
relied on.

Ex Parte, Walton. In re. Levy, (1881) 17 Ch.D.746; East End Dwelling
H
BIJENDER SINGH v. STATE 1133
Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, [1951) 2 All E.R. 587, Chief Inspector A
of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR (1961) SC 838 Jn re. Coal
Economising Gas Company, (1875) 1 Ch.D. 182 and Hill v. East and West
Dock. Co., (1884) 9 AC 448 HL, referred to.

2.3. By reason of the legal fiction, a person, although not a juvenile,
has to be treated to be one by the Juvenile Justice Board for the purpose B
of sentencing which takes care of a situation that the person although not
a juvenile in terms of the 1986 Act but still would be treated as such tmder
the 2000 Act for the said limited purpose. [1136-E]

3. Section 20 of the 2000 Act would, therefore, be applicable when C
a person is below the age of 18 years as on 1.4.2001. For the purpose of
attracting Section 20 of the said Act, it must be established that : (i) on
the date of coming into force of the 2000 Act, the proceedings in which
the petitioner was accused was pending, and (ii) on that day he was below
the age of 18 years. For the purpose of the said Act, both the
aforementioned conditions are required to be fulfilled .. By reason of the D
provisions of the 2000 Act, the protection granted to a juvenile has only
been extended but such extension is not absolute but only a limited one.
It would apply strictly when the conditions precedent therefor as contained
in Section 20 or Section 64 are fulfilled. (1136-F-G)

4. The embargo of giving a retrospective effect to a statute arises E
only when it takes away vested right of a person. By reason of Section 20
of 2000 Act no vested right in a person has been taken away, but thereby
only an additional protection had been provided to a juvenile.
(1136-H; 1137-A]

5.1. Provisions of 2000 ,Act would be applicable to those cases F
initiated and pending trial/inquiry for the offences committed under 1986
Act provided that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on
1.4.2001. In the instant case undisputedly the respondent No. 2 accused
ha~completed 18 years of age before 1.4.2001. (1137-B]
G
5.2. The trial court has to deal with the case of the respondent no.
2- accused keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
in Pratap Singh 's case. (1137-E]

Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., JT (2005) 2 SC 271,
followed. H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 448
of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.2003 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court i"n Crl.R. No. 1657 of 2003.

B Sunil Roy and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant.

Sunder Khatri, Vinay Kumar Garg, Prem Malhotra and Rishi Malhotra
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

The only point involved in this case is whether the respondent No. 2,
who was admittedly more than 16 years of age on 17 .11.1999 when he
purportedly committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 364; 201
b read with Sections 34 and l 20B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC') would be given the benefits of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the '2000 Act') and would
not be governed by the Juvenile Justice Act 1986 (in short the '1986 Act').

Factual position is undisputed and is essentially as follows :
E
A first infonnation report was lodged on 20.l l.1999 alleging commission
of the aforesaid offences on 17 .11.1999. Charge sheet was filed and charges
were framed. After filing of the charge sheet respondent No. 2-Accused
Sandeep made an application to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani
F praying that he should be considered to be a juvenile under the 2000 Act.
Since on the date of commission of offence, 1986 Act was in force and
according to its provision the accused was not juvenile being above sixteen
years of age, the application was dismissed. However, learned Sessions Judge
Bhiwani reversed the order and extended benefit of 2000 Act to the accused.
Complainant filed a revision application before the Punjab and Haryana High
G Court, which by the impugned order was rejected.

According to learned counsel for the appellant it is the date of
commission of the offence which is relevant and admittedly since the date of
birth of the respondent No. 2- accus..!d is 16.3.1982, he was seventeen years
and eight months of age at the time of commission of offence, i.e. he was
H above sixteen years. The 2000 Act is operative from 01.04.2001 and has no
BIJENDERSINGHv. STATE [PASAYAT,J.] 1135
relevance so far as the present appeal is concerned. A
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand referred to Section
64 of the 2000 Act to contend that a person who is in the prison is given
certain benefits and the same cannot be denied to a person who is yet to face
the trial.
B
The Constitution Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh v. State of
Jharkhand and Anr., JT (2005) 2 SC 271 had occasion to deal with the
matter relating to area of operation of the 1986 Act and 2000 Act. After
noticing a few relevant aspects which were noted in Pratap Singh 's case
(supra), the dispute in the present case can be effectively adjudicated.
c
The salient features of the 2000 Act may be noticed at ~he outset.
Section 1(3) of the said Act states that it would come into force on such date
as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
The Central Government had issued an appropriate notification in terms
whereof; 1.4.2001 has been specified as the 'appointed date' from whi_ch the D
provisions of the said Act will come into force. The Act, thus, is prospective
in its operation. However, the 2000 Act has repealed the Act of 1986. It has
obliterated the distinction between juvenile of different sex by reason whereof,
a male juvenile would also be juvenile if he has not crossed the age of 18.

One of the basic distinctions between 1986 Act and 2000 Act relates E
to age of males and females. Under the 1986 Act, a juvenile means a male
juvenile who has not attained the age of 16 years, and a female juvenile who
has not attained the age of 18 years. In the 2000 Act, the distinction between
male and female juveniles on the basis of age has not been maintained. The
age limit is 18 years for both male and female.
F
A person above 16 years in terms of the 1986 Act was not a juvenile.
In that view of the matter the question whether a person above 16 years
becomes 'juvenile' within the purview of 2000 Act must be answered having
rega~d to the object and purport thereof.

In terms of the 1986 Act, a person who was not juvenile could be tried G
in any court. Section 20 of 2000 Act takes care of such a situation stating that
despite the same the trial shall continue in that court as if that Act has not
been passed and in the event, he is found to be guilty of commission of an
offence, -a finding to that effect shall be recorded in the judgment of conviction,
if any, but instead of passing any sentence in relation to the juvenile, he H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A would be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board (in short the 'Board')
which shall pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if it
has been satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed the offence. A
legal fiction has, thus, been created in the said provision. A legal fiction as
is well-known must be given its full effect although it has its limitations. (See
B Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and Ors., JT (2002) 10
SC 55; ITW Signode India Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, JT (2004) 6
SC 456 and Ashok Leyland Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., JT (2004)
I SC 289).

In interpreting a provision creating a legal fiction, the Court has to
C ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created. (See Ex Parte, Walton. In
re. Levy, (1881) 17 Ch.D.746). After ascertaining the purpose the Court has
to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable
corollaries for giving effect to the fictio~. (See East End Dwelling Co. Ltd
.v. Finsbury Bor.qugh Council, (1951) 2 All E.R. 587; Chief Inspector of
Mines v. Karam Ch~nd Th;par, AIR (l961)'SC 838. But in so construing the
D fiction it is not to be extended beyond the purpose for which· it is created, or
beyond the language of the provision by which it is created. (See State of
Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Ors., [2000] 2 SCC 699, Jn re. Coal
Economising Gas Company, (1875) I Ch.D. 182 and Hill v. East and West
Dock. Co., (1884) 9 AC 448 HL).
E Thus, by reason of legal fiction, a person, although not a juvenile, has
to be treated to be one by the Board for the purpose of sentencing which
takes care of a situation that the person although not a juvenile in terms of
J
the 1986 Act but still would be treated as such under the 2000 Act for the I

said limited purpose.
F
Section 20 of the 2000 Act would, therefore, be applicable when a
person is below the age of 18 years as on 1.4.2001. FOr the purpose of
attracting Section 20 of the said Act, it must be established that : (i) on the
date of coming into force the proceedings in which the petitioner was accused
was pending, and (ii) on that day he was below the age of 18 years. For the
G purpose of the said Act, both the aforementioned conditions are required to
be fulfilled. By reason of the provisions of the 2000 Act, the protection
granted to a juvenile has only been extended but such extension is not absolute
but only a limited one. It would apply strictly when the conditions precedent
therefor as contained in Section 20 or Section 64 are fulfilled.

H The embargo of giving a retrospective effect to a statute arises only
BIJENDERSTNGHv. STATE [PASAYAT,J.] 1137
when it takes away vested right of a person. By reasons of Section 20 of A
2000 Act no vested right in a person has been taken away, but thereby only
an additional protection had been provided to a juvenile.

Provisions of 2000 Act would be applicable to those cases initiated and
pending trial/inquiry for the offences committed under 1986 Act provided
that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.200 l. In the B
instant case undisputedly the respondent No. 2 accused had completed 18
years of age before l.4.2001.

The Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh 's case (supra) has held as
under :
c
"(i) In terms of the 1986 Act, the age of the offender must be
reckoned from the date when the alleged offence was committed.

(ii) The 2000 Act will have a limited application in the cases pending
under the 1986 Act.
(iii) The court would be entitled to apply the ordinary rules of D
evidence for the purpose of determining the age of the juvenile
taking into consideration the provisions of Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the model rules framed by the

- Central Government have no statutory force."

In that view of the matter, the trial court has to deal with the case of .E
the respondent no. 2- accused keeping in view the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh 's case (supra).

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.