Name:

Roll no:
Course: LLB 2nd

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN)

ACT, 2015

Section 77 Juvenile Justice Act

1. Jalaludeen Kunju vs State Of Kerala (2019)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULA

On 19.09.2019 at about 6.10 p.m., the accused was found selling tobacco products viz., Cool
lip to the school students at the road leading towards Government Upper Primary School,
Chittoor, at the location in question and thereby the petitioner had committed the offences
under Sec.6 read with Sec.24 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of
Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply ad Distribution)
Act, 2003 (COTPA), Sec.118(i) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and Sec.77 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015.

The court in this case said that the allegation as against the petitioner, are serious and cannot
be brushed away and the petitioner has already been arrayed as an accused in about two
dozen of similar crimes. The learned Prosecutor has also pointed out that the petitioner has
been granted bail in most of his crimes with the specific condition that the petitioner shall not
commit offences of similar nature and that the act of the petitioner in getting involved in the
rest of the cases itself is a violation of the earlier bail conditions granted in other crimes.
Taking note of the facts the court ordered in the interest of justice that the petitioner shall be
released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on
his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum both to the satisfaction of the competent
court below concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:

(i). The petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between
9:00 a.m. and 1 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays, for the next six months. Thereafter, the
petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the said
officer.
(ii). The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation process and shall not
intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses; nor shall tamper
with the evidence.
(iii). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

2. State of Kerela vs Niyas & Ors (2018)

IN THE COURT OF FIRDT CLASS MAGISTRATE THRISSUR

The first accused was involved in the offences under Section 20(b)(II)(A) of the NDPS Act,
and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The
petitioner and the second accused were arrested in suspicious circumstances at the premises
of an educational institution, and on body search of the accused, the police seized a small
quantity of 10gms of Ganja. Thinking that the said quantity of Ganja was possessed by the
accused for sale to school children, the police registered the crime under Section 77 of the JJ
Act also. The petitioner seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution as
against him on the ground that mere possession of Ganja near a school is not punishable
under Section 77 of the JJ Act. The court observed that to punish such an accused under
Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, something more is required. If at all, there is no
material for a prosecution under Section 77 of the JJ Act, the whole crime cannot be quashed
because, seizure of small quantity of Ganja from the possession of the accused is prima facie
revealed by the prosecution records. The petitioner's grievance must be practically only
against the allegations under Section 77 of the JJ Act. Let the petitioner approach the trial
court itself for necessary relief, and he can even apply for discharge. In case such an
application is filed, the trial court will have to examine the essentials of Section 77 of JJ Act,
and see whether there are materials to frame such a charge. If no materials are there for such
a prosecution, the Court can frame charge appropriately and take decision appropriately. The
petitioner's case is that there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner had either
given or caused to be given any such article to any child, and just because, he was found at
the premises of an institution, a crime was wrongly registered against him under Section 77
of the JJ Act. Let the petitioner's grievance be examined by the trial court while taking
decision on the request for discharge, or while considering whether there is material for
forming a judicious opinion for framing charge under Section 77 of the JJ Act. If the Court
does not find any material to attract the ingredients of section 77 of the JJ Act, appropriate
decision as regards charge can be taken by the trial court. Thus, giving liberty to the
petitioner to approach the trial court itself for the right relief possible

Section 78 Juvenile Justice Act

Sunny vs. The State (Govt of Nct Of Delhi) (2022)

In The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

The applicant and the co- accused, in this case, named Sunita, the mother of the applicant,
have allegedly been pressurizing a minor child aged 14 years to sell liquor,the applicant and
his mother, was allegedly involved in twenty excise cases, (though it was submitted by the
counsel for the applicant that it was only three case), It was submitted on behalf of the
applicant that the applicant is a young boy without any previous adverse antecedents and that
the co- accused Sunita, qua whom no investigation is being conducted by the investigating
agency, suffers from a spinal ailment and is bed ridden.

On a consideration of the submissions that have been made by the applicant as well as the
submissions made on behalf of the State that the applicant did not join the investigation for a
period of two and a half months despite the receipt of the notice, the court in this case
rejected the applicants bail application as there is no ground whatsoever.

Section 79 Juvenile Justice Act

State vs . Gulab Singh & Ors (2023)

In The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts, Delhi

The case of the prosecution was that on 28.07.2016 on receiving DD No. 15 PP, Ct. Balram
reached at Chandanwari Apartment, Plot No.8, Sector 10, Dwarka where he met a girl named
as Saraswati Munda and told him that she is resident of West Bengal and aged 14 years and
that she had come to Chandanwari Apartment, Sector 10, Dwarka, Delhi from her native
place for domestic work through her sister Rajonmani. She further told that the accused
Ashish Kumar used to beat her, abused her and also slapped her and had thrown her out of the
house and refused to give the money for her work. She also alleged that accused Alpana used
to abuse her and had never given the salary of the complainant despite the fact that she
worked there for 15 days. It is also stated that Gulab Singh was working as an agent of Durga
Placement Bureau who got her the work at Flat No.354, Chandanwari Apartment. As such, it
is alleged that the accused persons i.e. Alpna and Aashish Kumar have committed the offence
punishableunder section75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act,
2015 and against accused Gulab Singh under section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act. The
Investigating Officer undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet
against the accused was filed. The main witness of the prosecution i.e. Saraswati Munda has
completely turned hostile in the present case. As the star witness of the prosecution has turned
hostile, statement u/s 281 r/w section 313 Cr PC stands dispensed. Therefore, there is nothing
on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence.Admittedly, no
other public witness of the incident in question has been cited and there is no other
circumstance to point towards the guilt of the accused persons. No other witness leads to the
suggestion that the accused persons have committed the offence. Thus, even if the evidence
of the hostile witness is considered partly, there is nothing on record to implicate the accused
persons. As such, none of the essential ingredients of the offence stands fulfilled in the
present case. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution was required to prove the offence under Section 75 & 79 Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children), Act,2015 beyond reasonable doubt. The star witness of the
prosecution i.e., the eye witness, has turned hostile. There is no evidence to link the accused
person with the crime charged against him. Further, the ingredients of the offence are not
fulfilled from the material on record. The accused persons, Gulab Singh, Ashish Kumar and
Alpna are hereby found not guilty. Accused Ashish Kumar and Alpan are hereby acquitted of
the offence under Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children),
Act,2015 and accused Gulab Singh 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children),
Act,2015.

Kothakonda Aishwarya v. The State of Telangana (2023)

In the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri

The Telangana High Court in the case Kothakonda Aishwarya v. The State of Telangana, rep.
by its Public Prosecutor, the bench headed by Justice K. Surender observed and has held that
where a juvenile who works voluntarily, Section 75 and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 do not apply. It has been provided under section
75 for punishment, if any person who is having control of child, assaults, abandons, abuses or
wilfully neglects the child. Thus, section 79 deals with the punishment for exploitation of a
child employee. Therefore, it prescribes punishment for acts of ostensibly engaging a child
and keeping him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholding the child earnings
or using such earnings for one’s own purposes. Facts of the Case: The volunteer in District
Child Protection Unit, Medchal District along with team deployed for operation Muskan
conducted a search for rescuing children employed as labourers. It was found in the Everbest
Foods Company that four girls of the age 17, one girl of 16 and another of age 14 years were
working in the company. A charge sheet was filed by the police after investigation for the
offences under Section 75 and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (the Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 against the employer of the company, Petitioner or Accused herein.
However, the criminal petition was being filed to quash the proceedings on the file of
Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences under Sections 75 and 79 of the Act. In the present
case, the court observed from the record of the case that the juveniles who were employed
had testified that they were working due to financial problems. However, the said witness did
not speak about any assault by the accused or abandoning or any kind of physical or mental
suffering. Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused
under Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The court allowed the Criminal
Petition.