{"id":198271,"date":"2005-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005"},"modified":"2015-06-02T20:31:56","modified_gmt":"2015-06-02T15:01:56","slug":"pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Sema<\/div>\n
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  210 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nPratap Singh \t\t\t\t\t             \t    \n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of  Jharkhand & Anr.\t\t\t       \t\t  \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nN. SANTOSH HEGDE,S.N. VARIAVA,B.P. SINGH & H.K. SEMA \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) NO. 3749 OF 2001)<\/p>\n
H.K.SEMA,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
\n10.9.2001 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal
\nRevision No. 98 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
\tBriefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal
\nare as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tFirst Information Report was lodged before the police in Bokaro city
\nregistered as P.S. case No.1\/99 dated 1.1.1999 for the offence under Sections
\n364A, 302\/201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC to the effect that on
\n31.12.1998 the appellant was alleged as one of the conspirators to have
\ncaused the death of the deceased by poisoning.  On the basis of the FIR the
\nappellant was arrested and produced before the C.J.M. Chas on 22.11.1999.
\nOn production, the learned CJM assessed the age of the appellant to be
\naround 18 years old.  On 28.2.2000, a petition was filed on behalf of the
\nappellant claiming that he was a minor on the date of occurrence i.e.
\n31.12.1998, whereupon the learned CJM transmitted the case to the Juvenile
\nCourt.  The appellant was produced in the Juvenile Court on 3.3.2000. On
\nhis production the Juvenile Court assessed the age of the appellant by
\nappearance to be between 15 and 16 years and directed the Civil Surgeon to
\nconstitute a Medical Board for the purpose of assessing the age of the
\nappellant by scientific examination and submit a report.  No such Medical
\nBoard was constituted.   Thus, the learned ACJM asked the parties to adduce
\nevidence and on examining the school leaving certificate and mark sheet of
\nCentral Board of Secondary Education came to the finding that the appellant
\nwas below 16 years of age as on 31.12.1998 taking the date of birth of the
\nappellant as 18.12.1983 recorded in the aforesaid certificate.   The appellant
\nwas then released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved thereby the informant filed an appeal before the 1st
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, who after referring to the judgment of this Court
\nrendered in Arnit Das  vs.   State of Bihar,<\/a> (2000) 5 SCC 488 disposed of
\nthe appeal on 19.2.2001 holding that the Juvenile Court had erred in not
\ntaking  note of the fact that the date of production before the Juvenile Court
\nwas the date relevant for deciding whether the appellant was juvenile or not
\nfor the purpose of trial and directed a fresh inquiry to assess the age of the
\nappellant.  Aggrieved thereby the appellant moved the High Court by filing
\nCriminal Revision Petition.  The High Court while disposing of the Revision
\nhas followed the decision rendered by this Court in Arnit Das (supra) and
\nheld that reckoning date is the date of production of the accused before the
\nCourt and not the date of the occurrence of the offence.
\n\tThe High Court held that for determining the age of juvenile,  the
\nprovisions of 1986 Act would apply and not 2000 Act.  The High Court,
\nhowever, took the view that the date of birth, as recorded in the school and
\nthe school certificate, should be the best evidence for fixing the age of the
\nappellant.  High Court was also of the view that any other evidence in proof
\nof age would be of much inferior quality.  As the enquiry is pending, we
\nneed not delve into this question.\n<\/p>\n
 Having noticed the conflicting views in Arnit Das    vs.   State of
\nBihar<\/a>  (2000) 5 SCC 488 and Umesh Chandra   Vs.  State of Rajasthan
\n(1982) 2 SCC 202, this matter has been referred to the Constitution Bench
\nby an order dated 7.2.2003.  It reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“The High Court in its impugned judgment has relied on a two-
\nJudge bench decision of this Court in Arnit Das   vs.  State of
\nBihar,<\/a> 2000(5) SCC 488.  The submission of the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner is that in Arnit Das (supra), the
\ndecision of this Court in Umesh Chandra  vs.  State of
\nRajashtan, 1982(2) SCC 202, was not considered.  The point
\narising is one of the frequent recurrence and view of the law
\ntaken in this case is likely to have a bearing on the new Act,
\nthat is, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 also,
\nthe matter deserves to be heard by the Constitution Bench of
\nthis Court. Be placed before the Hon.Chief Justice of India,
\nsoliciting directions.”\n<\/p>\n
This is how the matter has been placed before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe dual questions which require authoritative decision are:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tWhether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for
\ndetermining the age of the alleged offender as Juvenile
\noffender or the date when he is produced in the
\nCourt\/competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tWhether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in the case a
\nproceeding initiated under 1986 Act and pending when the Act
\nof 2000 was enforced with effect from 1.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n
Question (a)
\nWhether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for
\ndetermining the age of the alleged offender as Juvenile offender or
\nthe date when he is produced in the Court\/competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Mishra submits that the decision in Umesh Chandra (supra)
\nrendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the correct law
\nand a two-Judge Bench decision in Arnit Das (supra) cannot be said to have
\nlaid down a correct law. Mr. Mishra also submits that the decision in Arnit
\nDas (supra) has not noticed the decision of a three-Judge Bench in Umesh
\nChandra (supra).    Mr. Mishra also referred to the aims and objects of the
\nJuvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) and
\nsubmits that the whole object is to reform and rehabilitate the juvenile for
\nthe offence he is alleged to have committed and if the date of offence is not
\ntaken as reckoning the age of the juvenile, the purpose of the Act itself
\nwould be defeated.    In this connection, he has referred to Sections 18, 20,
\n26 and 32 of the Act.  Per contra Mr. Sharan refers to the aims and objects of
\nthe Act and various Sections of the Act and particularly emphasized the
\nword is employed in Section 32 of the Act and submits that cumulative
\nreading of the provisions as well as of the scheme of the Act would show
\nthat the reckoning date for determining the date of juvenile would come into
\nplay only when a juvenile appears or is brought before the authority\/court
\nand not the date of an offence.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may at this stage notice the preamble as well as object of the 1986
\nAct:\n<\/p>\n
“An Act to provide for the care, protection, treatment,
\ndevelopment and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent
\njuveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to,
\nand disposition of, delinquent juveniles.\n<\/p>\n
\tBe it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-seventh Year of
\nthe Republic of India as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Prefatory Note-Statement of Objects and Reasons.- A review of
\nthe working of the existing Children Acts would indicate that
\nmuch greater attention is required to be given to children who
\nmay be found in situations of social maladjustment,
\ndelinquency or neglect.  The justice system as available for
\nadults is not considered suitable for being applied to juveniles.
\nIt is also necessary that a uniform juvenile justice system
\nshould be available throughout the country which should make
\nadequate provision for dealing with all aspects in the changing
\nsocial, cultural and economic situation in the country.  There is
\nalso need for larger involvement of informal systems and
\ncommunity based welfare agencies in the care, protection,
\ntreatment, development and rehabilitation of such juveniles.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn this context, the proposed legislation aims at achieving the
\nfollowing objectives:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) to lay down a uniform legal framework for juvenile justice in
\nthe country so as to ensure that no child under any circumstances is
\nlodged in jail or police lock-up.  This is being ensured by
\nestablishing Juvenile Welfare Boards and Juvenile Courts;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) to provide for a specialized approach towards the prevention
\nand treatment of juvenile delinquency in its full range in keeping
\nwith the developmental needs of the child found in any situation of
\nsocial maladjustment;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) to spell out the machinery and infrastructure required for the
\ncare, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of
\nvarious categories of children coming within the purview of the
\njuvenile justice system.  This is proposed to be achieved by
\nestablishing observation homes, juvenile homes for neglected
\njuveniles and special homes for delinquent juveniles;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) to establish norms and standards for the administration of
\njuvenile justice in terms of investigation and prosecution,
\nadjudication and disposition, and care, treatment and rehabilitation;\n<\/p>\n
(v) to develop appropriate linkages and co-ordination between the
\nformal system of juvenile justice and voluntary agencies engaged
\nin the welfare of neglected or socially maladjusted children and to
\nspecifically define the areas of their responsibilities and roles;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) to constitute special offences in relation to juveniles and
\nprovide for punishments therefor;\n<\/p>\n
(vii) to bring the operation of the juvenile justice system in the
\ncountry in conformity with the United Nations Standard Minimum
\nRule for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAs its various provisions come into force in different parts of
\nthe country they would replace the corresponding laws on the
\nsubject such as the Children Act, 1960 and other State
\nenactments on the subject.”\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the whole object of the Act is to provide for the care, protection,
\ntreatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected delinquent juveniles.
\nIt is a beneficial legislation aimed at to make available the benefit of the Act
\nto the neglected or delinquent juveniles.  It is settled law that the
\ninterpretation of the Statute of beneficial legislation must be to advance the
\ncause of legislation to the benefit for whom it is made and not to frustrate the
\nintendment of the legislation.\n<\/p>\n
We may also, at this stage, notice the definition of delinquent juvenile.
\nSub-section (e) of Section 2 of the 1986 Act defines the delinquent juvenile
\nas:\n<\/p>\n
(e) “delinquent juvenile” means a juvenile who has been
\nfound to have committed an offence;”\n<\/p>\n
 Sub-section (l) of Section 2 of 2000 Act defines “juvenile in conflict
\nwith law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence.
\nThe notable distinction between the definitions of 1986 Act and 2000 Act is
\nthat in 1986 Act “juvenile in conflict with law” is absent.  The definition of
\ndelinquent juvenile in 1986 Act as noticed above is referable to an offence
\nsaid to have been committed by him.  It is the date of offence that he was in
\nconflict with law.   When a juvenile is produced before the competent
\nauthority and or court he has not committed an offence on that date, but he
\nwas brought before the authority for the alleged offence which he has been
\nfound to have committed.  In our view, therefore, what was implicit in 1986
\nAct has been made explicit in 2000 Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t   Section 32 of the 1986 Act deals with the presumption and
\ndetermination of age, which reads:\n<\/p>\n
“32. Presumption and determination of age.-(1) Where it
\nappears to a competent authority that a person brought before it
\nunder any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the
\npurpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile, the competent
\nauthority shall make due inquiry as to the age of that person and
\nfor that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary
\nand shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or
\nnot, stating his age as nearly as may be.\n<\/p>\n
(2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have
\nbecome invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person
\nin respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile,
\nand the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of
\nthe person so brought before it shall, for the purposes of this
\nAct, be deemed to be the true age of that person.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Sharan stressed heavily on the word is used in two places of the
\nSection and contended that the word is suggests that for determination of age
\nof juvenile the date of production would be reckoning date as the inquiry
\nwith regard to his age begins from the date he is brought before the Court
\nand not otherwise.  We are unable to countenance this submission.  We have
\nalready noticed that the definition of delinquent juvenile means a juvenile
\nwho has been found to have committed an offence.  The word is employed
\nin Section 32 is referable to a juvenile who is said to have committed an
\noffence on the date of the occurrence.  We may also notice the provisions of
\nSection 18 of the 1986 Act.  Section 18 provides for bail and custody of
\njuveniles.  It reads:-\n<\/p>\n
18. BAIL AND CUSTODY OF JUVENILES.(1) When any
\nperson accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and
\napparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is
\nbrought before a Juvenile Court, such person shall,
\nnotwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time
\nbeing in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he
\nshall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for
\nbelieving that the release is likely to bring him into association
\nwith any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that
\nhis release would defeat the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on
\nbail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police
\nstation, such officer shall cause him to be kept in an observation
\nhome or a place of safety in the prescribed manner (but not in a
\npolice station or jail) until he can be brought before a Juvenile
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section
\n(1) by the Juvenile Court it shall, instead of committing him to
\nprison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a
\nplace of safety for such period during the pendency of the
\ninquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.”\n<\/p>\n
It will be noticed that the word is has been used in more than one
\nplace in this Section also.  Often than not, an offender is arrested
\nimmediately after an offence is alleged to have been committed or some
\ntime even arrested on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
This would also show that the arrest and release on bail and custody
\nof juveniles, the reckoning date of a juvenile is the date of an offence and
\nnot the date of production.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurthermore, Section 32 of the Act heavily relied upon by the counsel
\nfor the respondent does not envisage the production of a juvenile in the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may also usefully refer to Sections 3 and 26 of the Act 1986.
\nSections 3 and 26 of the Act reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“3. Continuation of inquiry in respect of juvenile who has
\nceased to be a juvenile.- Where an inquiry has been initiated
\nagainst a juvenile and during the course of such inquiry the
\njuvenile ceases to be such, then, notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in
\nforce, the inquiry may be continued and orders may be made in
\nrespect of such person as if such person had continued to be a
\njuvenile”.\n<\/p>\n
“26. Special provision in respect of pending cases.-
\nNotwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings
\nin respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the
\ndate on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be
\ncontinued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if
\nthe court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it
\nshall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in
\nrespect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Juvenile
\nCourt which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in
\naccordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been
\nsatisfied on inquiry under this Act that the juvenile has
\ncommitted the offence.”\n<\/p>\n
The legislative intendment underlying Sections 3 and 26 read with the
\npreamble, aims and objects of the Act is clearly discernible. A conjoint
\nreading of the Sections, preamble, aims and objects of the Act leaves no
\nmatter of doubt that the legislature intended to provide protection, treatment,
\ndevelopment and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for
\nthe adjudication thereof.  Interpretation of Sections 3 and 26 of the Act are
\nno more res-integra.  Sections 3 and 26 of the 1986 Act as quoted above are
\nin pari materia with Sections 3 and 26 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970
\n(Raj. Act 16 of 1970).  A three-Judge bench of this Court in Umesh
\nChandra (supra) after considering the preamble, aims and objects and
\nSections 3 and 26 of the Rajasthan Act, held that the Act being a piece of
\nsocial legislation is meant for the protection of infants who commit criminal
\noffences and, therefore, such provisions should be liberally and
\nmeaningfully construed so as to advance the object of the Act.  This Court
\nthen said in paragraph 28 at 210 SCC:-\n<\/p>\n
“28.  As regards the general applicability of the Act, we are
\nclearly of the view that the relevant date for the applicability of
\nthe Act is the date on which the offence takes place. Children
\nAct was enacted to protect young children from the
\nconsequences of their criminal acts on the footing that their
\nmind at that age could not be said to be mature for imputing
\nmens rea  as in the case of an adult.  This being the intendment
\nof the Act, a clear finding has to be recorded that the relevant
\ndate for applicability of the Act is the date on which the offence
\ntakes place.  It is quite possible that by the time the case comes
\nup for trial, growing in age being an involuntary factor, the
\nchild may have ceased to be a child.  Therefore, Sections 3 and
\n26 became necessary.  Both the sections clearly point in the
\ndirection of the relevant date for the applicability of the Act as
\nthe date of occurrence.  We are clearly of the view that the
\nrelevant date for applicability of the Act so far as age of the
\naccused, who claims to be a child, is concerned, is the date of
\nthe occurrence and not the date of the trial.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tAs already noticed the decision rendered by a three-Judge bench of
\nthis Court in Umesh Chandra (supra) was not noticed by a two-Judge
\nbench of this Court in Arnit Das (supra).  We are clearly of the view that the
\nlaw laid down in Umesh Chandra (supra) is the correct law and that the
\ndecision rendered by a two-Judge bench of this Court in Arnit Das (supra)
\ncannot be said to have laid down a good law.   We, accordingly, hold that the
\nlaw laid down by a three-Judge bench of this Court in Umesh Chandra
\n(supra) is the correct law.\n<\/p>\n
Question No.(b):\n<\/p>\n
Whether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in the case a
\nproceeding is initiated under 1986 Act and pending when the Act
\nof 2000 was enforced with effect from 1.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn this point, we have heard Mr. P.S.Mishra, learned senior counsel
\nfor the appellant, Ms. Maharukh Adenwala, counsel for the intervener and
\nMr. Amarendra Sharan, learned ASG for the State of Jharkhand.   In fact
\ncounsel for the intervener has adopted the arguments of Mr. Mishra.   Mr.
\nMishra would submit that any proceeding against any person pending under
\nthe 1986 Act would be covered by the 2000 Act and would extend the
\nbenefit of being a juvenile as defined under the 2000 Act, if at the time of
\nthe commission of the offence he was below the age of 18 years.   To
\nbuttress his point counsel heavily relied upon the provisions contained in
\nSection 20 of the Act and Rules 61 and 62 framed by the Central
\nGovernment.  Per contra Mr. Sharan counsel for the respondent would
\ncontend that the 1986 Act has been repealed by Section 69(1) of the 2000
\nAct and, therefore, the provisions of  2000 Act would not be extended to a
\ncase\/inquiry initiated and pending under the provisions of 1986 Act, the Act
\nof 2000 being not retrospective.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo answer the aforesaid question, it would be necessary to make a
\nquick survey of the definitions and Sections of 2000 Act, relevant for the
\npurpose of disposing of the case at hand.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs stated hereinabove the whole object of the Acts is to provide for
\nthe care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of juveniles.
\nThe Acts being benevolent legislations, an interpretation must be given
\nwhich would advance the cause of the legislation i.e. to give benefit to the
\njuveniles.\n<\/p>\n
The 1986 Act was holding the field till it was eclipsed by the
\nemergence of 2000 Act w.e.f. 1.4.2001,  the date on which the said Act came
\ninto force by the Notification dated 28.2.2001 in the Official Gazette issued
\nby the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-
\nSection (3) of Section 1 of the Act.   Section 69(1) of the Act repealed the
\n1986 Act.  It reads:-\n<\/p>\n
69. Repeal and savings.-(1) The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53
\nof 1986) is hereby repealed.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action
\ntaken under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done or
\ntaken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t Sub-Section (2) postulates that anything done or any action taken
\nunder the 1986 Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the
\ncorresponding provisions of the 2000 Act.  Thus, although the 1986 Act was
\nrepealed by the 2000 Act, anything done or any action taken under the 1986
\nAct is saved by sub-section (2), as if the action has been taken under the
\nprovisions of the 2000 Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20 on which  reliance has been placed heavily by the counsel
\nfor the appellant deals with the special provision in respect of pending cases.
\nIt reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“20.  Special provision in respect of pending cases.-
\nNotwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings
\nin respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the
\ndate on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be
\ncontinued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if
\nthe Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it
\nshall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in
\nrespect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which
\nshall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with
\nthe provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry
\nunder this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe striking distinction between the 1986 Act and 2000 Act is with
\nregard to the definition of juvenile.  Section 2(h) of the 1986 Act defines
\njuvenile as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“2(h) “juvenile” means a boy who has not attained the age of
\nsixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen
\nyears;”\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 2(k) of 2000 Act defines juvenile as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“2(k) “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not
\ncompleted eighteenth year of age;”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, the striking distinction between the 1986 Act and 2000 Act is
\nthat under the 1986 Act a juvenile means a male juvenile who has not
\nattained the age of 16 years and a female juvenile who has not attained the
\nage of 18 years.  In the 2000 Act no distinction has been drawn between the
\nmale and female juvenile.  The limit of 16 years in 1986 Act has been raised
\nto 18 years in 2000 Act.   In the 2000 Act wherever the word “juvenile”
\nappears the same will now have to be taken to mean a person who has not
\ncompleted 18 years of age.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 3 provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“3.  Continuation of inquiry in respect of juvenile who
\nhas ceased to be a juvenile.-  Where an inquiry has been
\ninitiated against a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in
\nneed of care and protection and during the course of such
\ninquiry the juvenile or the child ceases to be such, then
\nnotwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other
\nlaw for the time being in force, the inquiry may be continued
\nand orders may be made in respect of such person as if such
\nperson had continued to be a juvenile or a child.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, even where an inquiry has been initiated and the juvenile ceases to be
\na juvenile i.e. crosses the age of 18 years, the inquiry must be continued and
\norders made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a
\njuvenile.\n<\/p>\n
            Similarly, under Section 64 where a juvenile is undergoing a
\nsentence of imprisonment at the commencement of the 2000 Act he would,
\nin lieu of undergoing such sentence, be sent to a special home or be kept in a
\nfit institution.  These provisions show that even in cases where a mere
\ninquiry has commenced or even where a juvenile has been sentenced the
\nprovisions of the 2000 Act would apply.    Therefore, Section 20 is to be
\nappreciated in the context of the aforesaid provisions.\n<\/p>\n
            Section 20 of the Act as quoted above deals with the special
\nprovision in respect of pending cases and begins with non-obstante clause.
\nThe sentence “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all
\nproceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on date
\nof which this Act came into force” has great significance.  The proceedings
\nin respect of a juvenile pending in any court referred to in Section 20 of the
\nAct is relatable to proceedings initiated before the 2000 Act came into force
\nand which are pending when the 2000 Act came into force.  The term “any
\ncourt” would include even ordinary criminal courts.  If the person was a
\n“juvenile” under the 1986 Act the proceedings would not be pending in
\ncriminal courts.  They would be pending in criminal courts only if the boy
\nhad crossed 16 years or girl had crossed 18 years.  This shows that Section
\n20 refers to cases where a person had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986
\nAct but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the    pending case shall
\ncontinue in that Court as if the 2000 Act has not been passed and if the Court
\nfinds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding
\nand instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, shall forward
\nthe juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile.\n<\/p>\n
         In this connection it is pertinent to note that Section 16 of the 2000 Act
\nis identical to Section 22 of the 1986 Act.  Similarly Section 15 of the 2000
\nAct is in pari materia with Section 21 of the 1986 Act.  Thus, such an
\ninterpretation does not offend Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and
\nthe juvenile is not subjected to any penalty greater than that which might
\nhave been inflicted on him under the 1986 Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Mishra placed reliance on Rules 61 and 62 framed by the Central
\nGovernment.  According to him, particularly Rule 62 of the Rules covers the
\npending cases and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 62.   Rule
\n62 reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“62. Pending Cases.-(1) No juvenile in conflict with law or a
\nchild shall be denied the benefits of the Act and the rules made
\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(2) All pending cases which have not received a finality shall be
\ndealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the Act
\nand the rules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Any juvenile in conflict with law, or a child shall be given
\nthe benefits under sub-rule (1), and it is hereby clarified that
\nsuch benefits shall be made available not only to those accused
\nwho was juvenile or a child at the time of commission of an
\noffence, but also to those who ceased to be a juvenile or a child
\nduring the pendency of any enquiry or trial.\n<\/p>\n
(4) While computing the period of detention of stay of a
\njuvenile in conflict with law or of a child, all such period which
\nthe juvenile or the child has already spent in custody, detention
\nor stay shall be counted as part of the period of stay or detention
\ncontained in the final order of the competent authority.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Rule also indicates that the intention of the Legislature was that
\nthe provisions of the 2000 Act were to apply to pending cases provided, on
\n1.4.2001 i.e. the date on which the 2000 Act came into force, the person was
\na “juvenile” within the meaning of the term as defined in the 2000 Act i.e.
\nhe\/she had not crossed 18 years of age.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Mishra referred to the decision of the two-Judge Bench of this
\nCourt in Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 2003 decided on 31.3.2004 in the case
\nof  Upendra Kumar   Vs.   State of Bihar, wherein this Court referred to
\nthe earlier decisions of this Court rendered in Bhola Bhagat   vs.  State of
\nBihar<\/a> (1997) 8 SCC 720, Gopinath Ghosh     vs.  State of W.B. 1984
\n(Supp). SCC 228, Bhoop Ram     Vs.  State of  U.P.( 1989) 3 SCC 1 and
\nPradeep Kuamr   vs.  State of U.P. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 419 where this
\nCourt came to the conclusion that the accused who were juvenile could not
\nbe denied the benefit of the provisions of the Act then in force.
\nWe, therefore, hold that the provisions of 2000 Act would be
\napplicable to those cases initiated and pending trial\/inquiry for the offences
\ncommitted under the 1986 Act provided that the person had not completed
\n18 years of age as on 1.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n
The net result is:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThe reckoning date for the determination of the age of
\nthe juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date
\nwhen he is produced before the authority or in the Court.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending
\nproceeding in any court\/authority initiated under the
\n1986 Act and is pending when the 2000 Act came into
\nforce and the person had not completed 18 years of age
\nas on 1.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005 Author: H.K.Sema Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 210 of 2005 PETITIONER: Pratap Singh RESPONDENT: State of Jharkhand & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2005 BENCH: N. SANTOSH HEGDE,S.N. VARIAVA,B.P. SINGH & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-02T15:01:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T15:01:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4935,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T15:01:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-02T15:01:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T15:01:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005"},"wordCount":4935,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005","name":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T15:01:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}