Section 2—The Special Judge appointed under the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Ain has travelled beyond his jurisdiction in holding that the victim being 15 years old was not legally competent to get herself married until attaining the age of 18. Alam vs State 54 DLR 298.Section 2(d)—LiIu Rani Das and Liton Chandra Das will get maintenance from their father defendant petitioner up to age of 18 years from December, 1987 and Lipi Rani Das, youngest daughter, will get maintenance till her marriage and plaintiff opposite party the wife will get the maintenance as per terms and conditions laid down by the trial Court in the judgment and decree. Ganesh Chandra Das vs Arati Acharjya 54 DLR 348.
Section 2(f)—In view of the definition of child as appearing in section 2(f) appellant Nasir ought to have been tried by Juvenile Court. Trial of child along with adult is forbidden by law. The trial of the appellant being held not by Juvenile Court is hit by want of jurisdiction Md Nasir Ahmed vs State 42 DLR (AD) 89Section 2(f)—The appellant has never been sent to a certified institute or approved home or committed to anyone’s custody by the Court. In fact he has been on bail. Therefore the passage of time did not stop for the purpose of computing the age of the appellant which means the appellant had already attained the age of 16 years. Bimal Das vs State 46 DLR 460.
Section 2(f), 6 & 8—No Child is to be charged with or tried for any offence together with an adult. The child must be tried in the Juvenile Court and not in the ordinary Court. Only the adult can be committed to the Court of Sessions and the Juvenile Court will take cognizance of juvenile offenders State vs Deputy Commissioner 45 DLR 643.
Sections 2(f) & 6(1)—Joint trial of appellant Sunil, a child, along with the appellants being adults was illegal. Kadu vs State 43 DLR 163.
Sections 2(f) & 6(1)—The trial of the minor accused appellant together with adult accused is hit by want of jurisdiction and, as such, the trial was vitiated. Kawsarun Nessa vs State 48 DLR196.
Sections 2(f), 6(2)(f) & 66—In order to get the benefit of separate trial the accused must satisfy the trial Court that he is a child and Court after consideration of the materials on record and bringing the accused before him shall come to a finding whether he is of the age of 16 or upwards. Hossain vs State 50 DLR 494.
Sections 2(f), 55-58 & 61—Offence against child—question of custody—If an offence is committed against a child before its attaining the age of 16, the Court has the power to keep it in custody till the child attains the age of 18 or till the proceeding in respect of the crime is terminated. Sumati Begum vs Rafiqullah 44 DLR 500.
Section 2(f), 6 & 66—The trial Court failed to apply its judicial mind as to the age of appellant Shiplu, who appears to have been below the age of 16. This makes the order of conviction and sentence in respect of Shiplu liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. Shiplu vs State 49 DLR 53.
Section 5(3)—Since the jurisdiction over the offences contained in the special laws are not specifically excluded by inclusion in section 5(3) of the Children Act, jurisdiction over offences committed by youthful offenders will be exercised by the Juvenile Court. State vs Md Roushan Mondal Hashem 59 DLR 72.
Sections 5(3) & 66(1)— When an accused claims to be below 16 years of age, a duty is cast upon the court to direct an enquiry to satisfy itself as to whether the accused is a child below 16 years of age on the day of framing charges against him. Rahamatullah (Md) vs State 59 DLR 520.
Section 6—Once a child offender crosses the age of 16 years and then charged with an offence or tried for the same, the statutory requirement of the child being tried by a Juvenile Court comes to an end. Baktiar Hossain vs State 47 DLR 542.
Section 6—Intention of section 6, Children Act requiring separate trial of a child is to ensure a special procedure and to secure certain legal rights for the accused child. An adult is not entitled to those rights and the adult accused in this case has not been prejudiced because of the joint trial. Ismail Howlader vs State 58 DLR 335.
Section 6-The trial is without jurisdiction since the petitioner was a minor and the trial was held by a Special Judge and not by a juvenile Court. The petitioner has gone through the motion of a full scale trial without jurisdiction will be an if injustice if he is required again to go for a fresh trial. Solaman vs State 58. DLR 429.
Sections 6 & 66-A close scrutiny of the section will show that the age referred to therein relates to the age of the accused when he is “charged with or tried” or, “and not to the age when the offence has been committed”. Once a child offender crosses the age of 16 years and then charged with an offence or tried for the same the requirement of the child being tried by a Juvenile Court comes to an end.
From the records it appears that the appellant has admitted that at the time of occurrence the appellant was 15 yeas 11 months and 10 days, only 20 days less than 16 years. We have already seen that by the time the appellant was charged with the offence he had reached the age of 16 years and thereby forfeiting his right to claim a trial by a Juvenile Court. In our view the appellant’s interest has not been prejudiced by the failure of the Special Tribunal to give a finding on his age as under the circumstances it has become an unnecessary exercise on the part of the Special Tribunal. Bimal Das vs State 46 DLR 460.
Sections 6 & 66(1)—When age of the accused is claimed to be below 16 years a duty is cast upon the Court to direct an enquiry to be satisfied itself as to whether the accused is a child below 16 on the day of framing charges against him. Monir Hossain @ Monir Hossain vs State 53 DLR 411.
Section 7(2)—Juvenile Court—When the jurisdiction over a person is established then no other Court has power to try a child below the age of 16 years. The trial of the accused found below the age of 16 years at the framing of charge was without jurisdiction. State vs Md Roushan Mondal @ Hashem 59 DLR 72.
Sections 35—The Sessions Judge may also, whether the situation demands it, exercise the power of a Juvenile Court, Bimal Das vs State 46 DLR 460.
Section 53—Children are entitled to trial before the Juvenile Courts and positive step should have been made to make their trial in accordance with law of Juvenile Court, not to be tried jointly with the adults. The respondents are directed to comply with the earlier direction and report compliance within six months from date. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust vs Bangladesh 57 DLR 11.
Section 66—Under this section it is for the ourt to consider whether a person charged with ai offence and brought before it for trial appears to be a child or not and then proceed accordingly. Abdul Munem Chowdhury @ Momen vs State 47 DLR (AD) 96.
Section 66—Child accused—Since the accused Tonmoy did not appear to be a child’ within the meaning of the Children Act and no petition was filed before the trial Court to the effect that he was a ‘child’. The Court below did not deem it necessary to make any enquiry into the alleged childhood. In such view of the matter, the lower Court concluded the trial of the case treating the accused Tonmoy as an adult. No exception can be taken thereto at this stage. State vs Md Faziur Rahman Tonmoy 61 DLR 169.
Section 66-In view of the fact that the trial Judge opined that the accused was not a minor, it cannot be said that the provisions of section 66 of the Children Act were contravened. When the accused was claiming to be a minor, the learned Judge ought to have followed the provisions of section 66 of the Children Act in order to allay any possibility that the accused was indeed a minor and to give him an opportunity to prove his entitlement under the Children Act. Jaibar Ali Fakir vs State 61 DLR 208.
Section 66(1)—In the absence of any finding as to the age of the accused-petitioner or determination of the accused-petitioner’s age by holding an inquiry, the Special Tribunal and Sessions Judge has failed to comply with section 66(1) of the Children Act. Baktiar Hossain vs State 47 DLR 542.