Nirma University

Institute of Law
B.Com. LL.B (Hons.) CourseVIII Semester

Case Analysis:
Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2264

Prepared & Submitted By

APEKSHA TIWARI
11BBL119
1

ARNIT DAS V. STATE OF BIHAR

AIR 2000 SC 2264
INTRODUCTION
A preamble is an amendable, descriptive component of a statute, and it is generally placed after
the long title and before the enacting words and the substantive sections. It is a useful guide to
the intention of the Parliament in that it may detail the mischief to which the Act is directed,
explain the reason, purpose, object or scope of the Act; and detail facts or values which are
relevant to the Act.1
This case talks about the interpretation of various sections of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1985. The
honble Supreme Court, while deciding the case had laid down the importance of Preamble in
this case. It was held by the bench on behalf of J. Lahoti that a decision not expressed, not
accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on conscious consideration of an issue cannot be
deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the
Constitution.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 5-9-1998, a FIR was registered under Sec. 302 of IPC at P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna. According
to the FIR, one Abhishek was shot dead on that day. On 13-9-1998, Arnit Das, the petitioner was
arrested in relation with the above mentioned offence. On 14-8-1998 the petitioner was
remanded to the Juvenile Home, Patna under Sec 164 of the CrPC by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
Claims of the PetitionerHe claimed to be born on 18-9-1982 and therefore, was a juvenile. He claimed protection under
The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

1 http://www.law.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/private/ho_ijaiya/7.pdf (Accessed on 8/3/2015).

2

Findings of A.C.J.M.This claim of the petitioner was disputed hence the A.C.J.M. directed an enquiry to be held under
Section 32 which talks about a Medical Examination. The medical report suggested that the age
of the petitioner was above 16 years and so the A.C.J.M. relied upon the medical report and
hence it was decided that the petitioner cannot be tried by the Juvenile Court.
Findings of Sessions Court and High CourtThe findings of the A.C.J.M. had been upheld by the Sessions Court in appeal and the High
Court in revision.
Findings of the Supreme CourtThe finding arrived at by the A.C.J.M. has been maintained by the Sessions Court in appeal and
the High Court in revision. The appeal had been dismissed.

PRESENTATION OF THE COURTS OPINION ON ISSUE IN THE CASE

1) By reference to which date the age of the petitioners is required to be determined for
finding out whether he is a juvenile or not.
2) Secondly, whether the finding as to age, as arrived at by the Courts below and maintained
by the High Court, can be sustained.
Court in the first issue has focused on the legislatures intention to find out whether the accused
is a juvenile or not. Here, the contention of the petitioner that he is a juvenile was flatly rejected
by all the Courts.
The Court has relied upon the medical report prepared by the Medical Authorities under the Act.
The same view has been upheld by the Supreme Court also hence the petitioners appeal has
been rejected.

The High Court has overlooked that Article 20(1) of the Constitution would be attracted only if
the applicability of the Act was determined by reference to the date of the offence but if it was
determined by reference to the date of the commencement of the inquiry or trial then.
The second reason assigned by the High Court is that the Investigating Officer may by delaying
investigation and putting up of the accused for trial deny the accused benefit of the provisions of
the Act and thereby defeat the object and purpose of the Act.

COURTS OPINION ON INTERPRETATION OF ANY EXPRESSION USED

IN STATUTE
The Court had focused on the definition of Juvenile. The question raised was which date to be
taken in consideration for determining the age for finding out whether a person is Juvenile or not.
The Act does not make any provision for a person involved in an offence by reference to the date
of its commission by him. The Court was of the opinion that this exercise would have been
avoided if only the Legislature would have taken care not to leave an ambiguity in the definition
of juvenile and would have clearly specified the point of time by reference to which the age was
to be determined to find a person a juvenile. In determining the conclusion of this case the Court
had discussed Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. and East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 2. It was
laid down in this case that it is the cardinal principles of construction that where the object or
meaning of an enactment is not clear, the Preamble must be restored to explain it. The Preamble
must be used to indicate to what particular instances, the enactment is intended to apply. The
ambiguity can be resolved by taking into consideration the Preamble and the Statement of
Objects and Reasons, The Preamble suggests what the Act was intended to deal with.
In the present case, the long title was also taken into consideration by the Court to coming to this
conclusion. The Court is of the opinion that the long title of the Act too suggests that the content
of the Act is the justice-aspect relating to juveniles. . The Court with the help of internal aids
such as Preamble and Long Title of the Act said that the date of the commission of offence is
irrelevant for finding out whether the person is a juvenile within the meaning of clause (h) of
Section 2 of the Act.
2 [1962] 1 SCR 44
4

With the help of the interpretation the Court, it has been held observed by this honble Court that
intention of the Legislature is clear from Section 3 of the Act. It provides for an enquiry initiated
against the juvenile being continued and orders made thereon even if such person had ceased to
be a juvenile during the course of such enquiry.

ANALYSIS
From the present case the researcher has observed that the Indian Supreme Court has mixed
approach in determining the validity of a statute with the help of Preamble.
In some cases like A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Admin.3, it was held that the legislature does not intend
to make any substantial alteration in the existing law beyond what is expressly declares or
beyond the immediate scope and object of the statute.
In the present case also the Court has upheld the intention of the statute by virtue of Section 3 of
the said Act. Preamble of any statute is a key to open the mind of its makers.
The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai4 has observed an all together
different approach. It has been held that if the meaning of the provision is plain, the Preamble
cannot control it. Preamble basically indicates the intention of the legislature but such intention
cannot be seen narrowly.
There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment. Therefore, before
any statute or provision is declared as unconstitutional the whole statute read, not only the
ambiguous part.
If the words employed in an enactment may spell a doubt as to their meaning, it would be useful
to interpret it with the object which the legislature had in its mind.

3 AIR 1973 SC 913

4
5

CONCLUSION
Legislation is regarded as one of the most important source of law. When ambiguity arises
internal and external aids are taken into consideration. Under internal aids preamble is one of the
major source to know the intention of the legislature. From the above case it can be concluded
that though the Supreme Court has given various ideologies about Preamble of the Statute. At the
time of ambiguity the statute has be read as whole. Preamble is not the only source of
interpretation.
In this case the Supreme Court has relied on the interpretation of the statute by relying on the
Preamble and Long title of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and hence, the appeal was disposed off.