Jurisdiction of Juvenile Court

2025 PLD 326 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 376(iii) & 377-BJuvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018), S. 9Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act (XXX of 2021), Sched. IIRape, unnatural offenceAppreciation of evidenceJuvenility of the accusedJurisdiction of Juvenile CourtScopeAccused was charged that he sexually abused the minor son of complainant

Allegedly, accused was Juvenile at the time of committing the offence, thus his trial should be conducted by the Juvenile Court

Criminal case against a juvenile for the offences mentioned in Schedule II to the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 could competently be tried by a Juvenile Court

However, the same was not the situation if a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape Act tried a Juvenile Offender for an offence mentioned in the Schedules to the Anti-Rape Act, unless specifically designated under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018

Question whether at the time of commission of offence, the appellant was able to perform the alleged criminal act to satisfy his lust remained unresolved as no effort was made by the prosecution to medically examine the appellant and place such material in evidence before the Trial Court

Sitting in appeal at this moment, the clock cannot be reversed to examine maturity of the appellant for the reason that determining 'maturity' of a person required consideration of multiple factors in real time during trial, which if not done promptly, coupled with negative report of the Chemical Examiner, created a presumption in favour of the appellant

If a juvenile was not tried within the Juvenile Court framework, the core purpose and intent of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, would be rendered ineffective

Such a decision would strip the juvenile of the protections and rights explicitly provided under the Act

Moreover, Juvenile Offenders adjudicated in the adult criminal system were more likely to re-enter in the society as potential career criminals rather than rehabilitated members of the community

Special Court (GBV Court) established exclusively under the Anti-Rape Act did not have "the jurisdiction to try a Juvenile Offender, unless the said Court was specifically designated as Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Act

Proceedings conducted by the Special Court (GBV Court) in the instant case being coram non judice were liable to be quashed and the impugned judgment being void was liable to be set-aside

However, the quashing of proceedings or setting-aside of the impugned judgment would not absolve the appellant from the criminal liability unless the matter was disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Act

In such circumstances, the instant appeal was partially allowed and the proceedings conducted during trial and impugned judgment were quashed

Matter was remanded with the direction that it shall be entrusted to a competent Juvenile Court for further proceedings.

2020 PLD 154 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 2(h)Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), Ss. 16 & 2(1)(e)Jurisdiction of Juvenile CourtPowers and Functions of Children Protection CourtChild at riskScope

Question before High Court was as to whether the accused, a juvenile, was to be tried by the Juvenile Court or the Child Protection Court

Held, Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 provided for criminal justice system and social reintegration of juveniles whereas, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, was enacted to provide care, protection, maintenance, welfare, training, education, rehabilitation and re-integration to children at risk in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

"Juvenile", according to S.2(h) of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, meant a child who could be dealt with for an offence in a manner which was different from an adult, while the purpose, aim and object of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, was the protection of the children who were at risk and not accused, therefore, the same could not be stretched in such a way so as to give shelter to a juvenile, who was accused for an offence

Accused did not fall within the ambit of "child at risk" as defined in S.2(1)(e) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, rather came within the meaning of juvenile

Trial of accused was withdrawn from the diary of Child Protection Court and entrusted to the Juvenile Court

Appeal was allowed according.

2020 PLD 154 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), S. 16Jurisdiction of Juvenile CourtPowers and functions of Children Protection CourtScope

Offence committed by a juvenile or adult against a "child at risk" shall be triable by the Court established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, while an offence committed by a child against an adult shall be tried by the Court created under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018.

2019 PCrLJ 1316 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(b) & 4Jurisdiction of Juvenile CourtScope

Legislature had promulgated the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to safeguard the rights of minors involved in criminal cases

Section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 narrated that "child" was a person who at the time of commission of offence had not attained the age of 18 years and his trial had to be conducted in terms of S. 4 by the special court constituted for juvenile offenders.

2014 PLD 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 11Release on probationJurisdiction of Juvenile CourtScope

Court, while exercising its discretion, would take into account, as to whether crime so committed by the juvenile was accidental, or culmination of compulsion of circumstances faced by him, or was a planned and intentional act and that whether his crime was against a particular person, his enemy or the whole society

When Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, was visualized in its entirety, it reflected that it had classified the juveniles into two categories: the one below 15 years of age and other above than that

Said two groups had been differently treated by the Ordinance itself

Clause (b) of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 took away the vested discretion of court when juvenile would reach the age of 18 years

Proviso to subsection (7) of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, had put fetters on grant of bail to child of the age of 15 years or above, even on statutory ground, if there were reasonable grounds to believe that such child was involved in an offen ce which was serious, heinous, gruesome, brutal, sensational in character, or shocking to public.