CHILDREN ACT, 1974

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. Stare 42 DLR (AD) 89.

Section 2(f), 6 and 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 trail of applicant Sunil, a child, along with the appellants being adults was illegal.
Kadu VS State 43 DLR 163.

Sections 2(f),55—58 and 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.

Sections 2(b), 3 & 6—
The word “cinematograph” is comprehensive enough to include a video—cassette player. It means a composite equipment used for production, projection and exhibition of motion picture film. There is nothing to show that the timber ‘Aroth’ from where the incriminating materials were seized was a place licensed under the Act and therefore the contention raised against the conviction has no substance.
Md. Aktarul Vs. State 42 DLR 491.