Shilpa Mittal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi Air – 2020 sc-405

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Shilpa Mittal Vs....

The court while ascertaining the scope of Sec 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 held that the Act does not deal with offences which are ‘heinous’ in nature.  It observes that even if a child commits a heinous offence, he cannot be automatically tried as an adult. Before, trying a child as an adult, an exhaustive study must be performed and the procedure in place must be adhered to. The offences which do not attract punishment of minimum 7 years do not fall under the category of ‘heinous offence’, and rather fall under the category of ‘serious offences’.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

PRITHVI RAJ CHAUHAN Vs. UOI – (2020) 4 SCC 727

Section 18A - SC/ST Act, 1989 - Constitutional Validity - The Apex Court, observed that provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC shall not apply to the cases under Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, Read more »

An Application For Claiming Juvenility May Be Made Even After The Judgment And Order Of Conviction And Sentence Has Been Granted Against A Person Which Has Attained Finality.

In State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr., 2024 INSC 747, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a miscellaneous application in a criminal appeal disposed earlier, set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment thereby acquitting the Applicant as he was a minor at the time Read more »

Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh

In Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Prithvi Raj Singh, 2024 INSC 1030, the Supreme Court held that filing a separate application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is unnecessary when seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.