Children Act, 1974

 

 

 

Sections 6 & 66(1)-

When age of the accused is claimed to be below 16 yearsa 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 (Md) @ Monir Hossain vs State 53 DLR 411.

Children Act, 1974

 

Children Act

[XXXIX of
1974]

 

Section 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.

 

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 and another vs State 48 DLR
196.

 

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 Shilpu liable to be set
aside for want of jurisdiction. Shiplu
and another vs State 49 DLR 53.

 

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
and others vs State and another 50 DLR 494

 

Sections 3-5—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 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
.

 

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.

 

Section 66—Under this
section it is for the Court to consider whether a person charged with an
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(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.

 

Children Act, 1974


Children Act, 1974

 

Children Act, 1974

Section 58 Custody of victim girl –
Proviso to clause (b) of section 58 has overriding effect.

On the basis of a television report on the sad
plight of a seven year old girl who was brutally raped the learned judges
feeling perturbed issued suomoto rule and called for the explanation from the
Magistrate concerned who directed the victim to be kept in the custody of safe
home when she was produced for recording her statement u/s 22 of the
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Am, 2000. The victim was not given to the custody
of her parents though they were willing and capable to take due care and
protection of her. The Magistrate took the plea as no application was filed so
he ordered to send the victim to custody of safe home. The learned judges
expressed serious concern about the lack of knowledge of the Magistrate about
the law of custody of the victim and held that the filing of application is not
the requirement of law. The court must give the victim girl to the custody of
her parents if they are willing and capable, no matter any application is filed
or not. The learned judges made series of recommendations urging the Government
to make necessary amendment or re-enact the laws relating to children in
conformity with the UN Convention
of the Rights of the Child ((CRC) and to take adequate
measures for imparting training to all concerned including the Magistrates and
judges.

State Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Law, fistice
and Parliamentary Affairs and others 15 MLR (2070) (HC) 59.

 

CHILDREN ACT, 1974


CHILDREN
ACT, 1974

(XXXIX
OF 1974)

Section—2(f)

Child
Witness

A child
witness who is himself a victim of assaults by the assassins of his father and
saw the accused persons killing him and he testifies in details before the
Court about the occurrence and remains unshaken in the face of
cross-examination is a competent witness and he can be safely relied upon.

Forkan
alias Farhad and another Vs. The State, 15BLD(AD) 163

 

Section—2(f)

Child
witness

The law
requires that before examining a child of tender age as a witness the Court
should satisfy itself that the child is intellectually developed enough to
comprehend what he has seen and to give an intelligent account of it to the
Court. If the Court finds otherwise, it should decline to examine him as a
witness. On the other hand, if the child is sufficiently intelligent to
understand the questions put to him and he is capable of giving rational
answers to those questions, then his capacity to give evidence is on the same
footing as that of any other adult witness.

Fazlul
Haq Sikder Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD)364

Sections—2(f),
6 and 8

Section 2(f)
provides that a boy under the age of 16 is a child. Section 6 provides that
there can be no joint trial of the child and the adult and as such no child is
to be charged with or tried for any offence together with an adult. The child
must be tried separately in the Juvenile Court and not in the ordinary Court.
Only the Junveile Court is competent to take cognizance against the juvenile
offenders.

The
State Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Satkhira, and others, 14BLD(HCD) 266

Ref:
1980 A.I.R (SC) 1579 and 1986 A.I.R. (SC) 1773—Cited

Sections—2(f),
6 and 66

The trial
Court failed to apply its judicial mind to find if appellant Shiplu, who
appears to below the age of 16 years at the time of trial is a child. This
makes the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court upon
appellant Shiplu illegal The impugned judgment and order are set aside for want
of jurisdiction.

Shiplu
and another Vs The State, 17BLD (HCD)243

Ref:
3 BLD (HCD) (1983)193—Cited

Sections—2(f)
and 6(1)

Under
section 2(f) a ‘Child’ means a person under the age of 16 years and when used
with reference to a child sent to a certified institute or approved home or
committed by a Court to the custody of a relative or other fit person means
that he is a child during the whole period of his detention notwithstanding
that he may have attained the age of 16 years during that period.

Section 6(1)
of the Act provides that no child shall be charged with, or tried for, any
offence together with an adult. In the instant case the trial of the minor
accused appellant Kawsarun-nessa together with adult Bahera Khatun must be held
to be illegal. Such a trial is without jurisdiction and as such the impugned
order of conviction cannot be sustained.

Kawsarun
Nessa and another Vs. The State, 15BLD(HCD)21

Sections—2(1)
and 66

In view of
the finding by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the trial Court that
tie petitioners are not children within the meaning of section 2 sub-section
(1) of the Children Act, the High Court Division rejected the defence plea that
the petitioners are children and they cannot be tried by the ordinary criminal
Court.

Mohammad
Hossain & ors. Vs. The State & anT. 18BLD(HCD)407

Ref:
47DLR(AD) 96—relied

Section—5

The appellant
is aged about 14 years and as such the trial of the appellant must be held by
the Juvenile Court according to section 5 of the Act and not by any other
Court. The trial held by Special Tribunal in respect of the appellant is
without jurisdiction.

Md
Shamim Vs The State, 19BLD

(HCD)542

Ref:
17BLD(1997)(HCD) 243:49 DLR53—relied upon

Section—49(1)

The
appellant has been in jail hajat since 1.6.1998 in association with other adult
criminals in contravention of section 49(1) of the Act and in such view of the
matter the prayer for bail deserves consideration.

Md
Shamim Vs The State, 19BLD (HCD) 542

Section—66

Presumption
and determination of age

Under
Section 66 of the Children Act it is for the Court to consider whether a person
charged with an offence and brought before it for trial appears to be a child
or not and then to proceed accordingly.

In the
instant case the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the age of the
petitioner could not be less then 16 years. Hç also noticed that there was sign
of interpolation in the registraiion card and the certificate issued from the
school. The learned Sessions Judge did not rely on those documents. From the
materials on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found it difficult to
hold the petitioner to be a child on the date of framing of charges. The
learned trial Court committed no illegality.

Abdul
Munem Chowdhury alias Momen Vs. The State, 15BLD(AD)184

Section—66(1)

It provide
that when it appears to the Court that a person charged with an offence is a
child, the Court is required to direct an enquiry to ascertain the age of the
accused. When an accused is above 16 years of age at the time of framing of the
charge he is not entitled to get the benefit of the Children Act

Bimal
Das Vs. The State 14BLD(AD) 218

Section—66(1)

It provides
that when an accused is brought before any criminal court for facing trial and
it appears that he is a child, the Court shall make an enquiry as to his age by
taking such evidence as may be forthcoming and shall record a finding thereon
stating his age as nearly as possible. When such a plea is taken by the
accused, a duty is cast upon a court to determine the age of the accused by
holding an enquiry.

Baktiadr Hossain Vs. The
State, 14 BLD (HCD)381.

 

Children Act, 1974


Children Act [XXXIX of 1974]

Sections 2(f) and 6—

Although the school certificate regarding the age of the
appellant has not been proved in accordance with the Evidence Act but the
recording Magistrate of the confessional statement stated the age as being
13-14 years which was corroborated by the evidence of DW 1 and in the absence
of  any evidence that the appellant was
sent to a certified institute, the appellant was below the age of 16 years at
the time of framing charge for which he was a child and his trial along with
the adults was vitiated by want of jurisdiction and the conviction and sentence
was set aside.

Saifullah @ Saiful Islam vs State 2 BLC 297.