Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Ahamad Ali and Another - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 2622 of 2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319, 173, 190, 223 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – Section 103, 23 –Report of police officer on completion – Cognizance of offences by magistrates – What person may be charged jointly – Instant criminal revision has been preferred against impugned order passed by Juvenile Justice Board Bulandshahar in Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime Police Station-Khurza Nagar District Bulandshahar whereby application preferred by State was allowed by Juvenile Justice Board – Held, Case where accused is a juvenile instant case proceeding with regard to said offence is going on before Juvenile Justice Board, while proceeding against said accused – Juvenile Justice Board finds from evidence which has come on record during proceedings before any person other than juvenile in conflict with law before him is also involved in that very offence – Court opinion Juvenile Justice board will not be silent expectator or without power to summon said accused – Even Juvenile Justice Board in exercise of power conferred summoning additional accused may summon either suo moto or an application filed by prosecution – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar in Criminal Case No. 140 of 2015 (State vs. Saleem @ Julla) arising out of Case Crime No.819 of 2015, under Section 302, 506 IPC, Police Station-Khurza Nagar, District Bulandshahar, whereby the application preferred by the State under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 28.10.2021 was allowed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar and the revisionists were summoned to stand trial under Sections 302, 506 IPC.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that first information report was lodged on 13.08.2015 in Case Crime No. 819 of 2015, under Sections 302, 506 IPC, Police Station Khurza Nagar, District Bulandshahar against Saleem @ Julla, Mauseem and Ahmad Ali by the complainant Buniyad Khan.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that accused Saleem @ Julla son of Yaseen preferred an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar for declaration as juvenile claiming himself of 16 years and 2 month on the date of incident. After holding the prescribed inquiry, the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 01.09.2016 declared Saleem @ Julla as juvenile conflict.
5. The opposite party no.2 challenged the order dated 01.09.2016 before the sessions judge vide Juvenile Appeal No. 111 of 2016 (Buniyad Khan vs. State of U.P. and after adjudicating the aforesaid appeal, the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar vide order dated 28.11.2016 rejected the appeal.
6. Accused Saleem @ Julla was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar vide order dated 28.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2016.
7. Investigation of the case was concluded and the charge sheet dated 30.08.2015 bearing charge sheet No.368 of 2015 was filed against Saleem @ Julla under Sections 302, 504 IPC. Further trial of the case No.140 of 2015 (State vs. Saleem @ Julla) commenced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar. During the course of trial, PW 1 Buniyad Khan, PW 2 Shakir Khan, PW 3 Harun were examined and their deposition were recorded before the trial court/Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar. The aforesaid witnesses in their deposition stated the complicity of the revisionists in the commission of offence.
8. He next submits that an application dated 28.10.2021 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial court with a prayer to summon the revisionists to face the trial along with accused Saleem @ Julla. The Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar vide impugned order dated 26.05.2022 allowed the application preferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Sections 302, 506 IPC and directed to place the file of the revisionists before the competent court of jurisdiction and directed for appearance of the revisionists before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar on 7.06.2022.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionists has vehemently challenged the impugned order on the ground that Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar has not vested with any jurisdiction to exercise the power conferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and on this score, the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar suffers from manifest illegality and is liable to be set aside.
10. He further submits that order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board is without jurisdiction and is also suffered from jurisdictional error. It has further been submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board does not have any power to summon any accused under the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure. Further in the investigation, no involvement of the revisionists were found by the investigating officer, in the alleged offence, therefore, the name of the revisionists were dropped from the charge sheet.
11. He next added that the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Bo
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, including the specific inquiry proc....
Section 94 of the Act, 2015 provides presumption and determination of age of juvenile and such presumption is not conclusive to prove the case and is rebutable on the evidence lead by the aggrieved p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the priority given to the date of birth mentioned in educational documents for determining the age of a juvenile, as per the provisions of the Juve....
Bail to juvenile delinquent – Gravity of offence is not a relevant consideration for declining bail to juvenile.
Juveniles are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of potential harm or criminal association, regardless of the offense's severity.
The court established that under the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of course unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that their release would pose a danger t....
The legal framework under the Juvenile Justice Act emphasizes the importance of thorough assessments, including medical and psychological evaluations, in determining a juvenile's capacity to understa....
Point of law: Thus it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only :-(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into as....
The court affirmed that the Board's reliance on social and counseling reports satisfied statutory requirements for trying a child as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Juveniles are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of potential harm or criminal association, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
