|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Article Published in the Express Magazine Dated
October 07,
2001
General Attorney : Rajiv K. Luthra
My maidservant's 13 year old boy has been
arrested for theft, along with two other men. It
may be quite possible that he has committed the
offence, as it is likely for him to get easily
lured at this tender age. But, if the courts were
to penalize him and send him to prison, it would
really damage his future and ruin his career for
the rest of his life. Will the child be
imprisoned?
Praveen Gupta, New Delhi
Your servant's child can be protected under the
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, ("Act") if it is
proved that he is below the age of 16 years. Such
protection is granted to a female child below the
age of 18 years. Such children are called
juveniles.
According to the Act, the Magistrate reports
offenses involving juveniles to the competent
juvenile authority, which is either a Juvenile
Welfare Board or a Juvenile Court. Once the
Juvenile Court is satisfied of the offense by the
juvenile, it may, depending upon the gravity of
the offence and other circumstances, either let
off the child after advising or admonishing him;
or release the child on probation of good conduct
and place him under the care of the parent,
guardian or any fit institution for his good
behaviour and well being for a period not
exceeding three years. Alternatively it may order
that the child be sent to a special home for a
period (in this case, where the child is below
fourteen), until such time as he ceases to be a
juvenile. The Juvenile Court further has the
discretion to reduce or increase the period of
stay depending upon the gravity of offence and
circumstances attached therewith. The extended
period does not go beyond two years of the child
crossing the juvenile limit. In addition, there is
a possibility of the juvenile being put under the
supervision of a probation officer and if the
report on the performance of the child by such
officer is negative, the child may be sent to a
special home.You may be informed that the Act
specifically provides that no juvenile who has
committed an offence shall be sentenced to death
or imprisonment or committed to prison in default
of payment of fine or in default of furnishing
security under the Act. Normally, under more
serious offences and where the child has attained
fourteen, the Court may order such a child to be
kept in safe custody. Such detention shall not
exceed the maximum period of imprisonment to which
the juvenile could be sentenced for the offence
committed.
My relative and I had agreed to purchase a
property for investment purposes. The deal was to
divide the investment by half, and eventually in
the event of its sale, share profit at the same
ratio. He did not invest a penny, and I went ahead
with the purchase with my own investments. Today,
the property can be sold at a high rate of profit.
My relative is now claiming a share from the
profit. Am I supposed to give anything to him?
G.K. Roychaudhary, Bikaner
This is a case of reciprocal promises as described
in Section 52 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In
a contract where there are reciprocal promises, a
promisor need not perform his part of the contract
unless the promisee has performed his.Therefore,
if you are able to prove that your relative has
not invested in the property at all, nor was he
willing to do so, you may not be obliged to
perform your part of the promise since your
relative cannot maintain an action without
averring performance, or an offer to perform, on
his own part. However, if your relative succeeds
in proving that he had invested or made offers in
time to invest, then he can claim his share of the
profit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
