RANJIT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Section 20 of the Act does not help the appellant. Even though the definition of 'juvenile' changed to 18 years in the 2000 Act, proceedings for offences committed when the 1986 Act was in force must use the 1986 Act's age limit. The appellant, being over 16 years at the time of the offence, is not entitled to benefits under either Act.
- Parties
- Appellant: Ranjit Singh; Respondent: State of Haryana
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Applicability of Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Definition of Juvenile Under the 1986 and 2000 Acts, Sentencing of Juveniles
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ranjit Singh
Appellant
State of Haryana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 or the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 based on his age at the time of the offence
Ratio Decidendi
Section 20 of the Act does not help the appellant. Even though the definition of 'juvenile' changed to 18 years in the 2000 Act, proceedings for offences committed when the 1986 Act was in force must use the 1986 Act's age limit. The appellant, being over 16 years at the time of the offence, is not entitled to benefits under either Act.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed as the appellant was not a juvenile under the applicable law at the time of offence
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment