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

Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another; 2023 SCC Online SC 551

The Sentence Can Be Suspended under Section 389 CrPC, in Appeal Only If Convict Has Fair Chances of Acquittal. Also observations are made that the Appellate Court should not re-appreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the... Read more » Read more »

The Digital Financial Influencers Alias (Fin)fluencers

In a highly structured and institutionalized Financial Market of Indian Economy, understanding of market dynamics and having a financial literacy is a much needed skill for adequately utilizing the benefits from market investment. However, despite a population of over a billion people1 the basic financial literacy of the ..... Read more »

Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757

In Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the rejection of the appellant’s bid for failing to submit a Power of Attorney, while allowing another bidder to rectify a similar deficiency and awarding the contract to them, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14... Read more » 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.