Pocso Act Who can grant remand in POCSO act offence ?

Who can grant remand in POCSO act offence ?

In relation to this matter, the court recalled an earlier decision of the Court of Sabari against the Inspector of Police (2019 MLJ, CRL 110), in which the bank dealt with the case of a person age 16-18 who had engaged in a love affair that ended in criminal proceedings and was booked under the POCSO law for a crime. The Chamber stated that it was imperative for the court to draw a fine line defining the nature of the act and to not allow anything to fall within the scope of law, so that the severity of the penalty provided for by the law could exceed the law as it could cause irreparable damage to the reputation and livelihoods of young people whose actions appeared harmless. In another case, led by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Arul Kumar, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 of the CrPC empowers a special judge to observe an offence during the detention of a defendant.   

Section 5 of the CRPC is a waiver from the compulsory requirement of Section 193 of the CRPC which prevents the tribunal from taking note of an offence outside its original jurisdiction unless the offence is committed before a judge.    

A judge can take note of a crime under the POCSO Act and bring it to justice. A special court is given the exclusive power not only to hear cases according to the law, but also to recognize the crime when the case is committed before a special court.    

Looking at these two provisions from a bird's-eye view, one gets the impression that the special court under POCSO law, the Court of Sessions, has the power to detain the accused pending an investigation. A closer reading of these provisions reveals that the Special Court, if it is a court of trial, has the power to return the accused for investigation in accordance with Section 167 of the Criminal Code, even though the court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prevent a special court from exercising its original jurisdiction to note an offence under law.    

The law does not preclude a judge from issuing an order to initially remand a defendant suspected of a crime under the law if the accused is brought before him or her, as he or she is entitled to do under Section 167 of the Criminal Code. In such a position the special court would have the power to take note of the offence, complaint or police report and the facts constituting the offence under the law, and the judge responsible for keeping and examining the application for bail would be able to proceed against the accused and proceed with the offence. The judge has the power to issue retrospective pre-trial orders and to deal with or consider, as the Special Court considers possible, the bail applications submitted by these defendants.    

It appears that, in accordance with the provisions above, when the accused is brought before such a judge, he has the discretion to remand the accused in the context of judicial jurisdiction for a period of 15 days as he deems appropriate. In the light of these facts, it is decided that the decision constitutes a total ban on the granting of bail by a judge. The Special Court deals with bail applications, and any Special Court order granting or refusing bail is open to challenge in the Supreme Court.    

Whether this means that the same provision in Delhi can be interpreted differently by different courts is not a sound practice. The decision in this way is not valid in the present case.    

Section 173 of the CRPC states that after the investigation is completed the officer on the police station where the investigation is being conducted is the duty of the officer that the judge has the power to take note of the alleged offence. This is demonstrably a special judge, not a trial judge, since Section 193 of the CrPC prohibits the trial judge from becoming aware of an offence in a court outside the original jurisdiction of the judge and from referring the case to another trial judge. The most glaring flaw in the preparation of the pre-trial detention is the arrest of the accused.    

Chennai, June 10 (PTI) The Supreme Court of Madras ruled that an investigation or an arrest under the POCSO Act (Prevention of Atrocities ( SC / ST) Act) can not be completed within 24 hours unless the investigating officer presents the suspect to the nearest judge. In order to provide more deterrence for sex offenders, the Parliament passed a new law on the protection of children from sexual offences in 2012, which entered into force on 14 November 2012. It seems that the law has suffered from poor wording, and the same has given the legal establishment a hard time, resulting in irregular and illegal orders being issued by the judiciary.