SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Del) 2603

DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA
P. – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)

Petitioner is a minor, who is represented through her father, on whose complaint FIR No.431/2018 was registered at PS Ranhola for offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act). The petitioner during the course of trial, needed a copy of the charge-sheet which was directed to be supplied to the petitioner by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 14th August, 2018 but at the expense of the petitioner and as per rules.

2. Section 25(2) of the POCSO Act reads as under:

"The Magistrate shall provide to the child and his parents or his representative, a copy of the document specified under Section 207 of the Code, upon the final report being filed by the police under Section 173 of that Code."

3. A perusal of sub-Section (2) of Section 25 clearly shows that the Magistrate is mandated to provide to the child/parents/guardians copy of the documents as specified under Section 207 Cr.P.C. upon the final report being filed. Sub-Clause (2) of Section 25 imposing a mandate on the Magistrate to provide a copy of the charge sheet learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top