Madhumati Mitra, J
This is an application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner, the Editor of ‘Anandabazar Patrika’ challenged the order impugned dated 15.09.2011 passed by the Learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Kolkata.
By the impugned order the Learned Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board took cognizance of violation of the provision of Section 21(1) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and issued summons against the petitioner.
Shortly stated the facts of the present application are that two emails on 08.09.2011 and 09.09.2011 were sent to media ‘Aaj Tak’, claiming the
responsibility of bomb blast at Delhi and Ahmedabad. An enquiry was initiated by Special Task Force (S.T.F.). On enquiry, it transpired that one mail
i.d which had been connected with another mail i.d and one mobile phone number were used for sending the said emails. The user of the mobile phone
number was contacted.
The user of the mobile phone number along with his son visited the office of Special Task Force for further verification of the mobile phone in
question. On interrogation the son of the user of the mobile phone disclosed in presence of his father that he created the mail i.d from his mobile and
with the help of Airtel Sim Card and internet service sent the mails to the media ‘Aaj Tak’ through the said mail i.d twice on 08.09.2011 and
09.09.2011.
After conclusion of enquiry, a complaint was lodged before D.C., Special Task Force, Kolkata, against the son of the user of the mobile phone.
During course of investigation that boy was taken into custody. Thereafter, the information of arrest of the Juvenile was provided to the newspaper
through a news conference held by a Senior Officer attached to the Special Task Force (STF) police, Kolkata. As per the information provided by
such officer, a news item was published by several newspapers including Anandabazar Patrika. The Juvenile Justice Board, Kolkata, District suo
motu took cognizance, on the basis of newspaper publication and telecast of the news naming the sender of email in television channel and was
pleased to conclude that such publication relating to that Juvenile in conflict with law with the address of such juvenile and in some cases the name of
the school of the Juvenile had been reported and such report was sufficient to identify the Juvenile in conflict with law. It appeared to the Juvenile
Justice Board that an offence punishable under Section 21(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred
to as the said Act of 2000) had been committed. Accordingly, the Board was pleased to take cognizance thereof by its order dated 15.09.2011 and
issued summons upon the accused persons including the petitioner.
In response to the said summons the petitioner appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kolkata through his Advocate and filed an application
under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for exemption from personal appearance.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application praying for setting aside the order dated 15.09.2011, issued by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Copy of case diary has been produced. I after carefully and assiduously examining the submissions and counter submissions advanced by all the
Learned Counsel for the parties both on the legal and factual aspects and after scrupulously scanning the materials placed on record and examining
the submissions of the parties, would like to deal with those contentions seriatim.
The impugned order dated 15.09.2011 reveals that it appeared to the Board from the report published in the ‘Times of India’ Thursday, 15th
September, 2011, page 4 that Shri Rajiv Kumar, Additional Commissioner of Kolkata Police, Special Task Force (S.T.F.) reported to the media
disclosing the name, age and address of the Juvenile in conflict with law.
In this connection, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the identity of the Juvenile in conflict with law was disclosed at a
press conference by the Kolkata Police (S.T.F.) who conducted the investigation and only the said report of press conference was published in the
newspaper. Disclosure of name, address or school of the Juvenile in conflict with law was made by the Investigating agency i.e. the Special Task
Force at the Press Conference and only the said report of the press conference was published in the newspaper.
Learned Advocate has strongly contended that no report of any inquiry in respect of the juvenile was published. Newspaper publication was confined
only to the report of press conference held by the Investigating Agency i.e. Special Task Force of Calcutta Police. It is the specific contention of the
Learned Advocate of the petitioner that the prohibition as contained in Section 21 of the Act of 2000 relates to the publication of inquiry report
disclosing the identity of the Juvenile. He has contended that what is prohibited under Section 21 of the Act of 2000 is the publication of inquiry report
and not the publication of investigation report. The said report of investigation was disclosed at the press conference by the Special Task Force of
police who conducted the said investigation. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to Section 21 of the
Act including its proviso. Learned Advocate has forcefully submitted that from the proviso to Section 21, it would be clear that the report as mentioned
in Section 21 relates to an enquiry. He has continued to say that if any confusion or ambiguity arises with regard to the words inquiry as contained in
Section 21 of the Act, then the proviso to Section 21 can be looked into for ascertaining the actual meaning and scope of the enactment. He has also
drawn the attention of the Court to the definitions of inquiry and investigation as contained in Section 2(g) and 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to his contention, if one goes through the entire
Section 21 including the proviso, then it would be clear to him that the prohibition relates to publication of an enquiry report in respect of any Juvenile.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner did not commit any offence under Section 21(1) of the Act of 2000 and
the continuance of the proceeding pending before the Juvenile Justice Board against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the initiation of proceeding under Section 21(1) of the Act of 2000 by the Juvenile Justice
Board on the basis of the publication of news item disclosing the identity of the Juvenile conflict with law does not suffer from any irregularity.
Publication of the news item in the newspaper of the petitioner had made full disclosure of the identity of the Juvenile involved in the alleged incident.
Section 21 of the Act, prohibits such publication except with the written permission of the competent authority. He has pointed out that publication was
made without any written permission from the competent authority.
Now, I have to find out the actual intention of the legislature to insert this provision i.e. Section 21 of the Act.
From the submission and counter submission of the parties, it appears that the centre of the dispute revolves around the question as to whether the
Learned Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board was justified in issuing process against the present petitioner to face trial for commission of
alleged offence under Section 21(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The true legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible
purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed. In case of doubt, therefore, it is always safe to
have an eye on the object and purpose of the statute or reason or spirit behind it. The object of the present legislation is to ensure proper care,
protection, development, treatment and social re-integration of children in difficult circumstances by adopting a child friendly approach keeping in view
the best interest of the child in mind.
A section has only one interpretation. If two interpretations are possible, then the interpretation which is in consonance with the spirit and reason
behind such enactment is to be accepted. Every section requires to be read as a whole and self-contained, with the inclusion of saving clauses and
provisos.
The proper object of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment and its
effect is confined to that case.
In the instant case admittedly no written permission was obtained regarding the publication in connection with the Juvenile conflict with law. It is clear
that the publication in question does not fall within the proviso to Section 21 of the Act of 2000.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court and submitted that from the proviso it would be clear that the report as
mentioned in Section 21 of the Act, relates to an enquiry.
For proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties, I think it would be better to have a look in Section 21 of the Act of 2000. Section 21 of the
Act runs as follows:-
“21. Prohibition of publication of name, etc., of juvenile in conflict with law or child in need of care and protection involved in any proceeding under
the Act.- (1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or visual media of any inquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in
need of care and protection under this Act shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of
the juvenile or child nor shall any picture of any such juvenile or child be published.
Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the authority holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in
the interest of the juvenile or the child.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees.â€
If one goes through the object of the Act and analyzes the entire Section as a whole then it would appear to him that prohibition as contained in
Section 21 relates to publication of name, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the Juvenile or child.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has tried to impress the Court that the prohibition relates to publication of the report of an inquiry. The contention
of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the publication of a report of an inquiry regarding a juvenile under this Act without
disclosing his identity is not prohibited. A juvenile may be identified by his name, address or school and other particulars of the juvenile. Prohibition as
contained in Section 21 is in respect of publication of the name, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the
Juvenile. Publication of inquiry report is not prohibited. Prohibition relates to the disclosure of the identity of the child/juvenile. From the news published
in the newspaper of the petitioner it appears that the identity of the Juvenile was disclosed in the said news items.
Admittedly, no permission was obtained from the Juvenile Justice Board before such publication.
A plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner that the newspaper of the petitioner only published the report of press conference called by the Special
Task Force which investigated the case and disclosure was made by it in a press conference and the petitioner only published news of that press
conference. While exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should
not assume the jurisdiction of the trial Court and to consider the defense of the petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to raise this plea at the time of trial.
After going through the materials placed on record as well as the impugned order, I am of the view that Learned Magistrate has rightly taken
cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 as the news published in the newspapers clearly disclosed the
identity of the Juvenile which prima facie constitutes the offence under Section 21(1) of the Act.
I am of the view that the Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board has rightly passed the impugned order. I do not find any reason to set
aside the impugned order or to quash the proceedings pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. Application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
The interim order if any, stands vacated.
Before parting with the case, I would like to clarify that the observations as made in this judgment should not be taken as an expression of any opinion
regarding the merit of the criminal proceedings pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Learned Principal Magistrate shall proceed with the
case and dispose of the same in accordance with the law with utmost expedition.
Copy of case diary be handed over to the Learned Advocate appearing for the State.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance with all necessary formalities.
